"CONTENTdm"@en . "University Publications"@en . "2015-07-13"@en . "1988-03-16"@en . "https://open.library.ubc.ca/collections/senmin/items/1.0115518/source.json"@en . "application/pdf"@en . " 9234.\nMarch 16, 1988\nThe Seventh Regular Meeting of the Senate of The University of British\nColumbia for the Session 1987-88 was held on Wednesday, March 16, 1988 at\n8.00 p.m. in Room 102, George F. Curtis Building.\nPresent: President D. W. Strangway (Chairman), Chancellor L. R.\nPeterson, Vice-President D. R. Birch, Mr. D. A. Anderson, Dr. J. M.\nAnderson, Dr. E. G. Auld, Dr. B. Bressler, Dean P. T. Burns, Mr. R. G. Bush,\nDr. D. G. A. Carter, Ms. L. M. Copeland, Dr. G. W. Eaton, Dr. A. Eisen, Dr.\nA. J. Elder, Dr. J. A. S. Evans, Mr. J. A. S. Fogarassy, Dr. S. E. Grace,\nDr. S. W. Hamilton, Dr. A. G. Hannam, Dr. M. A. Hickling, Dean R. W.\nKennedy, Mr. J. Kulich, Dr. S. C. Lindstrom, Mr. G. Loeb, Dean P. A.\nLusztig, Dr. B. C. McBride, Mr. D. Mclnnes, Dr. J. A. McLean, Mr. M. G.\nMcMillan, Dean J. H. McNeill, Dean A. Meisen, Dean R. C. Miller, Jr., Dr.\nA. G. Mitchell, Dr. B. M. Morrison, Mr. S. R. Pearce, Mr. A. J. Pearson, Mr.\nD. M. Pettingale, Dr. J. E. Phillips, Mrs. G. E. Plant, Mr. E. S. Reid, Dean\nJ. F. Richards, Mr. J. P. Ringwald, Dr. D. F. Robitaille, Mr. M. M. Ryan,\nDr. G. G. E. Scudder, Dr. M. Shaw, Dean N. Sheehan, Dr. L. de Sobrino, Mr.\nR. A. Speers, Dr. R. A. Spencer, Ms. B. Steffensen, Mr. K. H. Stewart, Dean\nP. Suedfeld, Mr. M. Sugimoto, Mr. G. Taylor, Dr. P. R. Tennant, Mr. G. A.\nThorn, Dr. R. C. Thompson, Dr. A. Van Seters, Dr. J. Vanderstoep, Mr. S.\nVukusic, Dean W. A. Webber, Dr. L. S. Weiler, Mr. J. A. Williamson, Ms.\nN. E. Woo, Dr. W. W. Wood.\nMessages of regret for their inability to attend were received from Dr.\nC. E. Armerding, Mr. D. W. Barron, Dean G. S. Beagrie, Rev. P. C. Burns, Dr.\nT. S. Cook, Ms. H. E. Cowan, Dr. J. D. Dennison, Dr. M. A. Goldberg, Dr. S.\nKatz, Dr. A. Kozak, Professor D. Pavlich, Dr. J. K. Stager, Dr. L. J. Stan,\nDean R. M. Will, Dr. J. L. Wisenthal.\nMinutes of previous meeting\nDr. Morrison ) That the minutes of the Sixth regular\nDean Burns ) meeting of Senate for the Session 1987-88,\nhaving been circulated, be taken as read\nand adopted.\nCarried 9235.\nMarch 16, 1988\nBusiness arising from the Minutes\nMotion by Dr. R. A. Spencer (p.9231)\nDr. Spencer ) That Senate establish a standing Committee\nMr. Williamson ) on Academic Policy. This committee should\nreview the academic policies of the University\nand their implementation, recommend necessary\nchanges in these policies to Senate, and report\nto Senate at least annually.\nIn speaking briefly to the motion, Dr. Spencer reminded Senate that\nsection 36 of the University Act begins \"The academic governance of the\nUniversity is vested in the Senate\". Dr. Spencer said he thought there\nmight be a question in the minds of some senators as to whether, as a\nbody, Senate was really accepting the responsibility conferred on it by\nthe statute. Dr. Spencer referred to section 36 (i) of the Act: \"to\nrecommend to the board the establishment or discontinuance of any faculty,\ndepartment, course of instruction, chair, fellowship, scholarship,\nexhibition, bursary or prize\". He stated that one of the reasons for\nsuggesting the establishment of the proposed committee was that he did not\nbelieve that Senate, as a body, is adequately prepared to deal with any\nissues that might arise for the discontinuance or the establishment of new\nprograms, since there was no framework within which to view some of the\nproposals and no coherent policy or planning guideline to use as a\nreference.\nDr. Spencer went on to say that UBC lacks a review mechanism to ensure\nthat Senate is kept informed of policy decisions and that it plays its\nproper role in evaluating proposed policies. He stated that there were a\nnumber of reasons why it was appropriate to consider establishing such a\ncommittee at this time; one of those being that over the last few years\nthere had been a number of initiatives in which outside agencies,\ntypically the provincial or federal government, offer funds for specific 9236.\nMarch 16, 1988\nBusiness arising from the Minutes\nMotion by Dr. R. A. Spencer (continued)\nactivities which are to be carried on in the University, and which are\ndefined in many cases quite narrowly by the terms of the particular grant\nor fund which supports them. He said it is difficult for Senate to be\ninformed as to the overall impact of those activities on the University as\nthey evolve over time. He felt that some mechanism was needed whereby\nSenate can understand the general direction in which the university is\nheaded. He stated that the current direction is very much influenced by\noutside funding.\nDr. Spencer read to Senate a letter from a Professor at McGill\nUniversity, which had been sent in response to a request for information\non how they handled this kind of problem. In this letter it was pointed\nout that the majority of faculty members had been very reluctant and had\nhad serious reservations about whether their academic work and the overall\npurposes of the university would be served or hindered by such a\ncommittee. However, in the seven years of the committee's existence it\nwas this professor's view that the majority had come around to the opinion\nthat the committee is a useful part of their overall operation.\nDr. Spencer stated that it was his perception that academic decisions\noriginate basically in one of two places. They originate at the\nDepartment and Faculty level and in the President's Office. He wished to\nmake it clear that it was not intended that the proposed committee would\nby and large initiate new academic enterprises but it would certainly\nreview what was going on. He envisaged that the first task of such a\ncommittee would be to establish terms of reference and mode of operation. 9237.\nMarch 16, 1988\nBusiness arising from the Minutes\nMotion by Dr. R. A. Spencer (continued)\nHowever, he felt that there were issues which illustrate the need for such\na committee; one of those being enrolment, another research funding. He\nstated that he did not wish to argue the merit of any particular position,\nbut wished to make it clear that there are specific issues which such a\ncommittee could address and present to Senate for debate in a meaningful\nand useful way. He stated that there were many other areas, such as\nliaison with other institutions, where Senate could have a useful debate\non academic policies. Although the proposed academic policy committee\nmight duplicate to a degree, perhaps, what the Budget Committee does it\nwould do a lot more. It would ensure that Senate was able to undertake\nand carry on an informed debate from time to time on some of the important\nissues. One of its major functions would be to report, as stated in the\nmotion, at least annually to Senate on the kinds of issues raised. It\nmight also report on the long term implications of curriculum changes. As\na senator, Dr. Spencer said, he would welcome an annual report which\nindicated the aggregate effect of curriculum changes, course changes, the\naddition and dropping of courses, and where it was taking the University\nover a period of time.\nIn conclusion, Dr. Spencer stated that a committee of this type, which\nmet on a regular basis, reported at least annually, and which put in front\nof Senate policy issues for debate, would serve a very useful function.\nHe suggested that if the motion passed, the Nominating Committee should be\nasked to advise Senate on the kind of membership the committee should have\nand to suggest the individual members, whose first item of business would 9238.\nMarch 16, 1988\nBusiness arising from the Minutes\nMotion by Dr. R. A. Spencer (continued)\nbe to develop more detailed terms of reference and an operating procedure\nfor the committee. This to be brought back to Senate, probably after the\nsummer, for Senate's consideration and approval.\nIn speaking against the motion, Dr. Tennant stated that Dr. Spencer was\nproposing a very fundamental change in how Senate operates. He thought\nthat the proposed committee would duplicate the work of existing\ncommittees and failed to see how it could deal adequately with the\nconcerns expressed by Dr. Spencer, or that it would provide the overview\nthat Dr. Spencer envisaged. He felt that in the proposal there was a\nrather simplistic distinction between policy and administration and that\nit would be very difficult to make that distinction in practice.\nIn response to a query concerning the intersect between the various\ncommittees of Senate and the proposed new committee on academic policy,\nDr. Spencer cited as an example the Senate Admissions Committee and the\ndecisions it has to make concerning transfer credit for university level\nwork done in high school. He stated that the committee would have to\nconsider the consequences of such a policy in terms of how it would affect\nthe amount of teaching done at first year level in this University. He\nthought that this was typical of the kind of question that many committees\nof Senate confront, and that they would be well served by being able to\nrefer to a policy statement which dealt with such issues. He felt that\nthe Senate Admissions Committee was not in a position to resolve such\nquestions as: \"is it the lonq term role of this university, given that its\nresources are limited, to attempt to give higher level and graduate 9239.\nMarch 16, 1988\nBusiness arising from the Minutes\nMotion by Dr. R. A. Spencer (continued)\ninstruction, or is it the job of this university to maintain, particularly\nperhaps in the Arts Faculty, as much undergraduate instruction as we\ncan\". He suggested that there would be many more cases where having an\noverall academic policy would be very useful.\nIn response to a question, Dr. Spencer stated that he did not see that\nthe creation of a committee of this kind would make it more difficult for\nFaculties to have initiatives approved. He felt that it would be helpful,\nin many cases, for Faculties to have some notion of what the university's\noverall planning objectives and academic policies were, and that it would\nbe useful if the Faculties knew that those policies had been reviewed and\napproved by Senate.\nIn response to a query concerninq the possible duplication of work done\nby the Senate Admissions Committee and the possible denigration of\nexisting committees, Dr. Spencer stated that if there were some overlap\nthere could be cross-representation on committees. He stated that the\nAdmissions Committee had recently found itself in a position where it did\nnot know what the overall policy was and he did not think that the\ncommittee had normally tried to define in broad terms the academic\npolicies of the university. He stated that the committee tends to look at\nthe consequences of certain proposals, and each member of the committee\nhas an opinion on whether those consequences will be beneficial or not,\nand the committee ends up debating inconclusively whether those\nconsequences, about which there may be little argument, are desirable or\nundesirable.\ns 9240.\nMarch 16, 1988\nBusiness arising from the Minutes\nMotion by Dr. R. A. Spencer (continued)\nA question was asked as to whether it was intended that the proposed\ncommittee would have a veto power. In his response, Dr. Spencer stated\nthat Senate, not the committee, has the power of veto and, in his opinion,\nthe formation of this committee is to give Senate a tool which will allow\nit to do its job better, not to create an alternative to Senate, and not\nto put into anybody's hands a veto power but rather to provide senators\nwith better information and a vehicle for some informed debate on the\npolicies, plans and long term goals of the University.\nSpeakers in support of the motion maintained that such a committee was\nnecessary in light of external forces impinging on the University. It was\nfelt that there was a need for a systematic way of developing policy so\nthat the University can respond to the inititatives and the challenges\nthat are being posed for it by the provincial government and their\ninitiatives on long term planning. Also, it was felt that there had been\na gradual change in direction internally which was changing the nature of\nthe university and that Senate should be concerned. It was noted that\nthere had been a shift in the balance of undergraduate and graduate\ncourses and an increase in the number of prerequisites etc., which had\nundercut the possibility of the continuation or further development of a\nliberal arts education at the University. It was felt that the\nconsequence of these incremental decisions would have a major impact on\nthe structure of the University and on its future, and yet there was no\nclear mechanism for making and reviewing overall academic decisions.\nOther members speaking in favour of the motion felt that the committee\nwould not interfere with the work of other committees because it would 9241.\nMarch 16, 1988\nBusiness arising from the Minutes\nMotion by Dr. R. A. Spencer (continued)\nsimply be giving guidance to Senate, and that any recommendations would be\nbrought to Senate for approval.\nIn response to criticisms, Dr. Spencer stated that he did not see the\nproposed committee as usurping the role of Senate by discussing policies\nin broad terms or in discussing the policy implications of specific\ninitiatives, nor did he see how such a committee could impose its policies\non either the Senate or its committees. What it will do, he said, is to\nallow those committees which confront specific issues that have policy\nimplications that go beyond the normal policy areas, to have a broader\nframework of reference through which they can view the implications of\ntheir decisions.\nAfter further discussion, the motion was put and carried.\nMotion by Mr. Fahy\nIn the absence of Mr. Fahy, Mr. Pearson presented the motion.\nMr. Pearson ) That the mandate of the Senate Committee\nDean Burns ) on Elections be expanded to give the Committee\npower to disqualify a candidate found to have\ncommitted election irregularities in the election\nunder review by the Committee and the power to\ndisqualify a candidate from participating in the\nnew election if one should be called by the\nCommittee.\nIn speaking to the motion, Mr. Pearson explained to Senate that the\npresent mandate of the committee allows the committee to call a new\nelection if election irregularities occur. However, it does not give the\ncommittee the power to disqualify candidates who violate the rules from\nparticipating in the new election.\nAfter a brief discussion the motion was put and carried. 9242.\nMarch 16, 1988\nChairman's remarks and related questions\nDr. Stranqway drew attention to the proposed schedule for the completion\nof the \"Mission Statement\" which had been circulated at the meeting. He\nstated that consultations with Deans, Department Heads and most of the\nDirectors of the individual academic programs had now taken place, and that\nthe document was being revised as a result of input from those groups.\nMeetings with the Faculty Association, student groups and the Administrative\nand Professional Staff were being arranged. A draft of the \"Mission\nStatement\" would then be circulated to members of the Board of Governors, to\nmembers of Senate, the Alumni Association, College Heads, and the Ministry.\nIt was hoped that a draft document would be published in May which would be\navailable to every member of the University community for comment. This\nwould lead to extensive revision over the summer, and the final document\nwould then be presented to the Board of Governors and to Senate in the fall\nfor discussion and approval of items requiring Senate approval.\nDr. Strangway asked Vice-President Birch to comment on the ten-year\nplanning process being initiated by the provincial government in connection\nwith advanced education. Dr. Birch explained that the government felt that\nthere ought to be, in every public institution, and in each sector, some\nsense of priorities and direction, and that this could be integrated in an\noverall provincial plan. The Premier's office has generated a 30-page\nbooklet which includes a statement that is referred to as an MVO (Mission,\nValues and Objectives) and each sector and each institution is expected to\ngenerate an MVO which will indicate its mission and its values within the\ncontext of provincial values. These are seen as both strategic objectives\nand tactical objectives. He stated that this was a very elaborate process\nthat had been set in motion, complicated a little further by the fact that 9243.\nMarch 16, 1988\nChairman's remarks and related questions (continued)\nthere were now two structures for the cabinet of the province, one in the\ntraditional division of portfolios and the other based on economic regions,\nand the process of planning has to take both of these into account. Within\neach economic region, mechanisms have been established for looking at some\nof the issues which government feels should be exempt. Within the\nuniversity sector, that related to regional access committees and a\nprovincial committee attempting to integrate the input from those, within\nthree days, in the latter part of next month; then a joint planning and\narticulation committee which is charged with identifying an MVO for the\noverall sector of advanced education and manpower.\nDr. Birch expressed concern about the momentum being generated. He stated\nthat the Joint Planning and Articulation Committee had an initial meeting\nlast week where members were given about an inch and a half of paper to\nwhich to respond. The first paper took the entire meeting - it was entitled\n\"High level planning principles for advanced education and job training\".\nHe said there were a number of things within it that are somewhat alarming,\nand the first meeting was taken up with very strongly pressed suggestions\nthat there had to be a somewhat broader view of the function of education in\nour society; that it had something to do with intellectual development,\ncultural development and the value of that to the individual and society,\nnot merely tightening the links between manpower planning and training\nprograms. Within that committee itself there was a fair degree of\nresponsiveness to those kinds of points and the committee was very anxious\nto influence the direction of those papers as they emerge. Among the papers\nhanded out to the committee there was only one that had real coherence and\nsense of a clear objective, and that was a statement on advanced education\nfor the State of Washington. It clearly set out at the very beginning an 9244.\nMarch 16, 1988\nChairman's remarks and related questions (continued)\nobjective; the objective beinq that of quality and becoming one of the top\nfive higher educational systems in the United States. This very clear and\nthoughtfully articulated goal was followed by a whole series of\nimplementation strategies including a clearly defined fourth year system\nwith two institutions sharply defined as research and graduate\ninstitutions; four institutions regarded as mixed institutions, with\nundergraduate and graduate work and some research activity; another level\nof baccalaureate only institutions; and another level with community\ncolleges. Also included in the statement was a clearly articulated set of\nadmission policies. Since the meeting the committee had reinforced major\npoints made in the meeting by following up in writing. Also, as a result of\naction taken at a meeting of the Tri-university President's Council they\nwould be looking at the structure of the staff assigned to this planning\nexercise by the ministry. Dr. Birch stated that, initially, there was a\ndeputy minister and 3 or 4 staff members related to the university;\napproximately 85 related to the college sector and a similar number related\nto job training, apprenticeship etc. It was felt necessary to ensure that\nthe kind of thinking manifested in this body in a university context is\navailable to them in the planning process. Dr. Birch stated that a number\nof the documents entering into the planning process, including the document\nrelated to the State of Washington, would be circulated to all members of\nSenate.\nIn conclusion, Dr. Strangway reported that the provincial budget was\nexpected to come down on March 24, and that the allocation for UBC would\nprobably not be known before the end of April. 9245.\nMarch 16, 1988\nChairman's remarks and related questions (continued)\nIn response to a question, Dr. Strangway stated that those involved with\ncontinuing education would be included in the list of people being asked for\ninput concerning the \"Mission Statement\".\nFrom the Board of Governors\nNotification of approval in principle of Senate recommendations - subject,\nwhere applicable, to the proviso that none of the programs be implemented\nwithout formal reference to the President and the formal agreement of the\nPresident; and that the Deans and Heads concerned with new programs be asked\nto indicate the space requirements, if any, of such new programs.\n(i) B.Sc. program in Aquacultural Science, recommended by the Faculty of\nAgricultural Sciences, and the Faculty of Science, (pp.9198-9)\n(ii) Curriculum proposals recommended by the Faculty of Agricultural\nSciences. (pp.9199-9201)\n(iii) Curriculum proposals recommended by the Faculty of Arts.\n(pp.9201-9212)\n(iv) Curriculum proposals recommended by the Faculty of Graduate Studies,\n(pp.9212-15)\n(v) Abolition of the M.Sc. program in Psychiatry recommended by the\nFaculty of Graduate Studies. (p.9195)\n(vi) Approval in principal of proposed revisions to the lengths of the\nfour academic years in the undergraduate medical curriculum\nrecommended by the Faculty of Medicine. (p.9215)\nSenate Nominating Committee\nIn accordance with established procedure the following vacancies on the\nNominating Committee were declared:\nMr. J. A. Williamson - student representative\nMr. R. A. Yaworsky - student representative\nMembers of Senate, including the new student senators who take office on\nApril 1, 1988, will be notified in writing of the call for nominations to\nfill the vacancies on the Nominating Committee. Nominations will remain\nopen until the April 20, 1988 Senate meeting and, if necessary, an election\nheld at that meeting. 9246.\nMarch 16, 1988\nReports of Committees of Senate\nCommittee on Student Awards\nMr. McMillan ) That the new awards (listed in Appendix 'A')\nMr. Pearson ) be accepted subject to the approval of the\nBoard of Governors and that letters of\nthanks be sent to the donors.\nIn the absence of Dr. Cook, Chairman of the Committee, Mr. Murray\nMcMillan presented the report. Mr. McMillan drew Senate's attention to\nthe John H. Mitchell Memorial Scholarship in the amount of $4,500.\nThe motion was put and carried.\nProposals of the Faculties\nFaculty of Medicine\nThe following change to the membership of the Faculty had been\ncirculated:\nAdd 1 representative from the Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences. Item\n(f) now reads: (addition underlined)\n(f) Such other members of the teaching or administrative staffs of the\nfaculty or university as the faculty shall appoint in conformity\nwith rules determined by the faculty and approved by the Senate:\n(i) Part-time and Clinical teachers of the Ranks of\nProfessor, Associate Professor and Assistant Professor\n(ii) Representatives from other Faculties:\nScience:\n3\nDentistry\nthe Dean\nArts\n1\nPharmaceut\nical\nSciences\n1\n(iii) The Co-ordinator of Health Sciences Centre\nDean Webber ) That the proposed change to the\nDr. Bressler ) membership of the Faculty of Medicine\nbe approved.\nCarried 9247.\nMarch 16, 1988\nProcedure for Transfer Credit evaluation\nThe following proposal from Vice-President Birch, Chairman of the\nPresident's Task Force on Liaison, Recruiting and Admissions, had been\ncirculated with the agenda:\n\"Our current procedures require an institution seeking transfer credit\nfor a particular course or courses to submit relevant information\n(including a course syllabus, reading list and faculty curriculum vitae)\nto the University Registrar. These are then forwarded to the\nappropriate Department, School or Faculty for consideration and a\ndecision whether or not transfer credit will be granted and, if so, in\nterms of equivalency to a particular UBC course or as unassigned\ncredit. This procedure assumes that the course in question is offered\nin an institutional context with the academic ethos and academic\nresources appropriate to the delivery of high-quality university\ntransfer courses. Without assurance of the necessary academic context,\na course description and instructor C.V. is not a sufficient guarantee\nof quality and stability. Two years ago we established a Committee to\nrecommend a procedure for evaluating the adequacy of the resources,\nfacilities and academic policies of private institutions applyinq to the\nUniversity for recognition of their courses for transfer credits. The\nCommittee was chaired by C. V. Finnegan, Associate Vice President and\nChairman of the Senate Admissions Committee. He and the Registrar were\njoined by representatives of Simon Fraser University and the University\nof Victoria who had been invited to participate in the exercise.\nThe Committee recommended a Stage I evaluation of \"the resources,\nfacilities and academic policies that affect the ability of an\ninstitution to deliver high-quality university transfer courses in an\nappropriate academic environment.\" Only after a positive recommendation\nat Stage I, would individual universities undertake a Stage II\nevaluation of individual courses for which transfer credit had been\nrequested. The Stage II evaluation would be conducted by each\nuniversity according to its own policies and procedures.\nThe Tri-University Presidents' Council was established by the Presidents\nof UBC, SFU and UVic as a forum for the consideration of matters of\nmutual interest. It consists of the three Presidents, three Vice\nPresidents Academic, and three Vice Presidents Administration and\nFinance. Sub-Committees of the TUPC are struck for particular\npurposes. It is the recommendation of the Tri-University President's\nCouncil:\nthat the Senate of each of the three universities be asked to approve\nestablishment of a Tri-University Committee on which each University\nis represented by a Registrar and a second member who shall be an\nacademic 9248.\nMarch 16, 1988\nProcedure for Transfer Credit evaluation (continued)\n\"that the Committee operate under the aegis of the Tri-University\nPresident's Council and that it be designated the TUPC Transfer\nCredit Sub-Committee, that it arrange Stage I evaluations (see\nAppendix 'B') of private institutions which apply for recognition of\ntheir courses for transfer credit.\nthat private institutions requesting evaluation be reminded that the\nTUPC Sub-Committee is NOT an accrediting agency and that the agency\nmay NOT use a recommendation of the Sub-Committee in its advertising\nor promotional material.\nI further recommend that, should the above recommendations be approved,\nthe Vice President Academic be authorized to designate the second UBC\nmember on the TUPC Transfer Credit Sub-Committee and that the\nTri-University Presidents' Council be asked to provide Senate with a\nsummary of the activities undertaken by the Sub-Committee not less\nfrequently than once a year.\"\nDr. Birch ) That the Senate of each of the three\nMr. Williamson ) universities be asked to approve establishment\nof a Tri-University Committee on which each\nUniversity is represented by a Registrar and\na second member who shall be an academic.\nthat the Committee operate under the aegis of\nthe Tri-University President's Council and that\nit be designated the TUPC Transfer Credit\nSub-Committee, that it arrange Stage I\nevaluations (see Appendix 'B') of private\ninstitutions which apply for recognition of\ntheir courses for transfer credit.\nthat private institutions requesting evaluation\nbe reminded that the TUPC Sub-Committee is NOT an\naccrediting agency and that the agency may NOT use\na recommendation of the Sub-Committee in its\nadvertising or promotional material.\nIn response to a query concerning the need for a procedure for transfer\ncredit evaluation, Dr. Birch explained that over a period of time the\nUniversity has built up a substantial mechanism of articulation between\ndisciplines within the University and those in the public colleges in B.C.\nHe stated that this has worked well and indeed underlies the University's\nexisting policy for continuing requests for transfer credit from those\npublic institutions. In recent years, however, there has been a 9249.\nMarch 16, 1988\nProcedure for Transfer Credit evaluation (continued)\nproliferation of private institutions requesting information on the\nUniversity's procedure with respect to the granting of transfer credit.\nThey present themselves, and may even be established under the Societies Act\nas an institution bearing the designation \"college\". They cannot present\nthemselves as universities but in some instances they call themselves\nuniversity colleges. They submit to the Registrar's office the course\nsyllabus, reading list, and the qualifications of the proposed instructor.\nThe Registrar's Office will then convey this information to the department\nconcerned which will assess and evaluate it as the basis for determining the\nadequacy for qranting transfer credit. It became apparent some time ago\nthat this procedure was inadequate.\nDr. Birch went on to say that there is a greater concern in relation to\na change approved by Senate at its last meeting, because there are a number\nof institutions in the province which cater specifically not to British\nColumbians but to off-shore students. Under the statement in the Calendar\npreviously, the Registrar's Office could inform students, regardless of\nwhether they had attended Harvard University or a university college within\nthis province, that because they were attending another instutition in North\nAmerica they were ineligible to apply to UBC so there was a whole category\nof people who were not even considered. Given that change in practice, he\nfelt that the University would be faced with applications from off-shore\nstudents who are attending these kinds of institutions, therefore it was\nabsolutely essential to have a mechanism in place for the evaluation of\ntransfer credit.\nOn the issue of accreditation, Dr. Birch stated that Canada does not\nhave accrediting agencies, except for those that exist within a particular\nprofession. Nevertheless, it has been the experience in a number of 9250.\nMarch 16, 1988\nProcedure for Transfer Credit evaluation (continued)\njurisdictions that institutions that receive a clean bill of health from\nsomebody tend to print in their calendars a statement that carries with it\nthe sense of accreditation.\nIn response to a query about transfer credit from institutions outside\nthe province, it was explained that with regard to public institutions, UBC\naccepts their credit and they accept ours. In the case of private\ninstitutions, there are some provinces that have already put into place a\nsimilar policy where they evaluate the private institutions in determining\nwhether or not their courses can be accepted for transfer. In the case of\nthose provinces that do not have a set policy, UBC consults with the leading\npublic institution in that province, and based on their position in dealing\nwith a private college in that province UBC will then take a similar\nposition.\nin response to a query, Dr. Birch referred to page 3 of the proposal\nwhich indicated that if these recommendations were to be approved, the Vice\nPresident Academic be authorized to designate the second UBC member on the\nTUPC Transfer Credit Sub-Committee.\nDr. Birch stated, in response to a query, that he had no basis on which\nto assess the impact of the free-trade agreement should it ultimately be\napproved. He explained that at the present time, under the University Act,\nno university other than those named in the Act or named in specific other\nActs of the Provincial Legislature, has the right to grant degrees in this\nprovince. He stated that there is a subterfuge by which institutions avoid\nthat by saying the degree is granted somewhere else even though the course 9251.\nMarch 16, 1988\nProcedure for Transfer Credit evaluation (continued)\nor programs are offered here. He said that as far as he knew, institutions\nthat are operating within this province and granting their degrees elsewhere\nhave not approached UBC for transfer credit.\nThe motion was put and carried.\nOther business\nStudent Senators\nOn behalf of Senate, the Chairman expressed thanks and appreciation for\nthe contributions made by those students who were attending their last\nSenate meeting. Students were requested to continue to serve on\ncommittees until replacements are named.\nThe meeting adjourned at 9.35 p.m.\nThe next regular meeting of Senate will be held on Wednesday, April 20,\n1988.\nSecretary\nConfirmed,\nChairman 9252.\nMarch 16, 1988\nAPPENDIX 'A'\nNew awards recommended to Senate\nB. c. Society of Occupational Therapists - Alison Lapage Memorial\nScholarship - A $150 scholarship, gift of the B.C. Society of Occupational\nTherapists, has been established in memory of Alison Lapage, who taught\nOccupational Therapy at UBC. The scholarship is awarded on the\nrecommendation of the School of Rehabilitation Medicine to a third or fourth\nyear Occupational Therapy student who is a member of the Society, has\ndemonstrated excellence in academic studies and fieldwork, and displays a\nstrong interest in the study of mental health. (Available 1988/89 Winter\nSession)\nDr. Alan Baird Brydon Memorial Scholarship - Margaret I. Brydon has made a\n$900 scholarship available in memory of her son. The award is made on the\nrecommendation of the Faculty of Medicine to a student entering the final\nyear of the M.D. program, with preference given to a student with an\ninterest in dermatology. (Available 1988/89 Winter Session)\nCredit Union Foundation of British Columbia Lucille Sutherland Bursary - Two\nbursaries totalling $600 are provided by the Credit Union Foundation of\nBritish Columbia from the Lucille Sutherland Trust, to mark Mrs.\nSutherland's enduring contribution to the Foundation and its student\nassistance programs. The bursaries are awarded to women entering second or\nthird year Law. The recipients must be Canadian citizens. Preference will\nbe given to Native women whose previous education was obtained in B.C The\naward will be made on the recommendation of the Native Law Committee.\n(Available 1988/89 Winter Session)\nDr. Earl Ellison Prize - A $100 prize has been made available by friends of\nDr. Earl Ellison to mark the occasion of his 70th birthday. The award will\nbe made on the recommendation of the Faculty of Dentistry to a student\ndemonstrating excellence in geriatric dentistry. The award is available for\na five-year period commencing in 1987/88.\nLidstone, Young, Baker & Anderson Prize in Municipal Law - A $500 prize, the\ngift of the firm o? Lidstone, Young, Baker & Anderson, Barristers and\nSolicitors, is awarded on the recommendation of the Faculty of Law to a\nstudent who achieves high academic standing in Law 303 (Municipal Law).\n(Available 1988/89 Winter Session)\nJohn H. Mitchell Memorial Scholarship - This $4,500 scholarship was\nestablished by his family, as a tribute to John Hardie Mitchell, a\nparticipant in the Great Trek of 1922, and a 1924 graduate in the Faculty of\nArts. He devoted sixty-five years to developing the stevedoring business in\nBritish Columbia. He was the owner and Chairman of the Board of Canadian\nStevedoring Company Ltd., and Casco Terminals. At 65, he was the first\nemployer ever to be made an honorary member of the I.L.W.U. Pensioners'\nClub. He was an active man with a keen interest in sports. The award is\nopen to students entering the third or higher year of undergraduate studies,\nthe first year of graduate studies, or registered in a professional\nprogram. The selection is made by a special committee from among those\ncandidates nominated by faculties and designated student organizations for\nthe Sherwood Lett Memorial Scholarship. Candidates are expected to have 9253.\nMarch 16, 1988\nAPPENDIX\nNew awards recommended to Senate\nJohn H. Mitchell Memorial Scholarship (continued)\ngood academic standing, and have demonstrated achievement in sport and\nparticipation in student and community activities. Nominations must be\nreceived by July 1st. (Available 1988/89 Winter Session)\nHarry Weinstein Bursary - A $100 bursary in honour of Harry Weinstein Sr. is\noffered to undergraduates in any year and Faculty who have good academic\nstanding and financial need. (Available 1988/89 Winter Session)\nCaptain C. Y. Wu Scholarship - Three $700 scholarships have been endowed by\nCaptain Chao Yu Wu and his wife Chiu Hui Wu, M.Sc, Ph.D., from the proceeds\nof a retirement allowance for Captain Wu after 17 years of service at B.C.\nHydro. Two scholarships will be available to students in Engineereing\nPhysics, and a third scholarship will be available to a student in Food\nScience. The awards are made on the recommendation of the Departments of\nEngineering Physics and Food Science. (Available 1988/89 Winter Session) 9254.\nMarch 16, 1988\nAPPENDIX 'B'\nTri-University Presidents' Council\nProcedures for Transfer Credit Evaluation\nIntroduction\nThe public universities of British Columbia (SFU, UBC, UVIC) have received\napplications for transfer credit for post-secondary courses and programs\noffered in British Columbia by private institutions that are not governed by\nthe University Act, the College and Institute Act, the Institute of\nTechnology Act or the Trinity Western College Amendment Act. These requests\nraise issues relating to the adequacy of the applicant's resources,\nfacilities and general academic policies that are of concern to the public\nuniversities, as well as issues relating to specific courses that are of\nconcern to each university individually. The Tri-University Presidents'\nCouncil (TUPC) which addresses system-wide issues affecting the public\nuniversities has decided to process applications for transfer credit from\nprivate institutions in two stages:\nStage 1 - This first stage evaluates the adequacy\nof the resources, facilities and academic policies\nthat affect the ability of the institution to\ndeliver high-quality university transfer courses\nin an appropriate academic environment. This\nevaluation will be conducted by the Transfer\nCredit Sub-Committee of the TUPC.\nStage II - The second stage evaluates individual\ncourses for which transfer credit has been\nrequested. This evaluation will be conducted by\neach university individually according to its own\npolicies and procedures as is currently the case.\nAll requests for transfer credit must be initiated by the applicant\ninstitution and mailed to The Secretary, Tri-University Presidents' Council,\nc/o President's Office, University of Victoria.\nUnless a first stage evaluation has been completed, an application to any of\nthe public universities for transfer credit for a course will not be\nconsidered and transfer credit will not be granted for any courses until the\nfirst stage evaluation has been successfully completed.\nStage I Evaluations\nThe purpose of the Stage I evaluation is to ensure that any institution\noffering courses for transfer credit to the public universities of British\nColumbia has resources, facilities and general academic policies conducive\nto university-level work in the chosen fields of instruction, at a high\nlevel of excellence, on a continuing basis. 9255.\nMarch 16, 1988\nAPPENDIX 'B' (continued)\nT.U.P.C Transfer Credit Sub-Committee\nOperational Procedures\nMembership - Each university shall be represented on the Sub-Committee by a\nRegistrar and an Academic member.\nOperational Procedures\na) a private institution must submit an initial request for transfer credit\nto the Secretary of the Tri-University Presidents' Council;\nb) the written request for evaluation shall provide documentation to\nrespond to the needs outlined below;\nc) the Secretary in consultation with the Sub-Committee will then establish\nan Evaluation Team and provide it with the materials. This Team shall\nconsist of at least one Academic member and one University Registrar;\nd) the Evaluation Team will conduct the evaluation and report back to the\nSub-Committee with recommendations and rationale. This report shall be\nconsidered confidential;\ne) the Sub-Committee then will consider the confidential report and its\nfinal advisory position will be made known to the private institution\nand the TUPC by the Secretary. Private institutions that receive a\npositive evaluation may then proceed to Stage II Evaluation for course\nby course consideration as per the individual procedures of each public\nuniversity. Private institutions that receive a negative evaluation\nwill be so advised and the reasons the Sub-Committee did not approve the\napplication;\nf) it is understood that a re-evaluation may be requested by the private\nuniversity at any time after the inadequacies determined in the original\napplication are addressed.\nMaterials required for consideration in the evaluation include:\nA) General Background\nThe institution should provide a general statement of the nature,\nhistory and objectives of the institution. This statement may include:\n- a description of all programs offered by the institution, at all\nlevels, including remedial programs and future plans.\n- a record of enrolment by program for the previous five years\nincluding projected enrolment. 9256.\nMarch 16, 1988\nAPPENDIX 'B' (continued)\nB) Admissions Policies\nThe institution must have admissions policies consistent with the level\nof preparation generally expected of students entering a university\ntransfer program at a British Columbia public college or of students\nadmitted to the public universities.\nEvidence in support of this may include:\na concise official statement of admission policies for university\ntransfer programs, including a statement of the level of proficiency\nin English expected upon entry.\nC) Governing Structure\nThe institution must demonstrate that it has an organizational structure\nwith appropriate academic governance and with qualified administrative\nstaff appropriate for the accomplishment of its educational purposes.\nEvidence in support of this may include:\n- the composition and responsibilities of the institution's governing\nbodies;\n- a complete description of the academic structure of the institution;\nan administrative chart of the institution;\na list of the senior administrative staff, their vitae and job\ndescriptions;\na statement of the institution's relationship to other organizations\n(government, university, church, etc).\nD) Facilities\ni) Libraries and Resource Centres.\nLibraries, Resource Centre and Support Services must be adequately\nsupplied and appropriately staffed to support the institution's\ncurricula. Students must have adequate access to relevant\nmaterials for study and research.\nEvidence in support of this may include:\n- a summary of holdings in all subject areas;\n- collection policies;\n- resources available;\n- future plans and priorities regarding libraries, resource centres\nand support services. 9257.\nMarch 16, 1988\nAPPENDIX 'B'\nD) Facilities (continued)\nii) Physical Plant\nThe institution's building, classrooms, computing facilities,\nlaboratories and their furnishings must be appropriate to support\nthe institution's curricula and instruction.\nEvidence in support of this may include:\n- facilities available;\n- policies and practice regarding utilization and maintenance;\n- future plans and priorities regarding physical plant.\nE) Faculty\nThe institution must be adequately staffed with qualified faculty,\neducated at the appropriate level in disciplines that are consistent\nwith the academic goals and objectives of the institution.\nEvidence in support of this may include:\n- an outline of the hiring policies for academic staff at the\ninstitution;\n- a list of full-time and part-time faculty including their curriculum\nvitae showing their degrees and areas of expertise.\nF) Review\nFollowing the initial evaluation, the institution shall report to the\nSecretary any new initiatives, revisions and other changes to its\nprograms or to the information that it supplied during the initial\nevaluation. Failure to do so could jeopardize transfer credit already\nawarded and require that the institution re-apply for Stage I approval.\nG) Reminder\nIt will be understood by the private institution requesting evaluation\nthat the TUPC Transfer Credit Sub-Committee is NOT and accrediting\nagency and accordingly, the institution may NOT use a recommendation of\nthe Sub-Committee in its advertising or promotional material. The\nTransfer Credit Sub-Committee reserves the right to revise the\nprocedures at any time.\nStage II Evaluations\nPolicies of the individual public universities will apply in the Stage II\nevaluation process. Approval at Stage I does not guarantee that course\napproval will result at Stage II."@en . "Periodicals"@en . "Vancouver (B.C.)"@en . "UBC_Senate_Minutes_1988_03_16"@en . "10.14288/1.0115518"@en . "English"@en . "Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library"@en . "[Vancouver : University of British Columbia Senate]"@en . "Images provided for research and reference use only. Permission to publish, copy, or otherwise use these images must be obtained from the University of British Columbia Senate: http://senate.ubc.ca/"@en . "Original Format: University of British Columbia. Archives"@en . "University of British Columbia"@en . "[Meeting minutes of the Senate of The University of British Columbia]"@en . "Text"@en . ""@en .