"CONTENTdm"@en . "University Publications"@en . "2020-04-24"@en . "1999-12-15"@en . "https://open.library.ubc.ca/collections/senmin/items/1.0390072/source.json"@en . "application/pdf"@en . " The University of British Columbia\nVancouver Senate Secretariat\nSenate and Curriculum Services\nEnrolment Services\n2016-1874 East Mall\nVancouver, BC V6T 1Z1\nwww.senate.ubc.ca\nVANCOUVER SENATE\nMINUTES OF DECEMBER 15, 1999\nAttendance\nPresent: President M. C. Piper (Chair), Vice-President B.C. McBride, Mr. R. Affleck, Dr. P.\nAdebar, Dr. J. D. Berger, Dean J. Blom, Mr. P. T. Burns, Dean J. A. Cairns, Mr. T. C. Y. Chan,\nDr. D. Fisher, Dr. J. H. V. Gilbert, Dean F. Granot, Dr. S. W. Hamilton, Dr. A. G. Hannam, Dr.\nP. E. Harding, Dr. J. Helliwell, Dean M. Isaacson, Dr. C. Jillings, Dr. D. D. Kitts, Dean M. Klawe,\nDr. S. B. Knight, Dr. B. S. Lalli, Dr. V. LeMay, Mr. T. P. T. Lo, Dr. D. M. Lyster, Dr. P. L.\nMarshall, A/Dean J. A. McLean, Dr. W. R. McMaster, Mr. W. B. McNulty, Dean D. Muzyka,\nMr. V. Pacradouni, Dr. G. N. Patey, Dr. J. Perry, Mr. G. Podersky-Cannon, Mr. H. Poon, Dean\nM. Quayle, Dr. H. J. Rosengarten, Dr. K. Schonert-Reichl, Dean N. Sheehan, Prof. A. F.\nSheppard, Dr. C. Shields, Dr. C. E. Slonecker, Dr. R. Tees, Dr. J. R. Thompson, Mr. D.\nTompkins, Dean pro tem. A. Tully, Mr. D. R. Verma, Dr. D. Ll. Williams, Dr. R. A. Yaworsky,\nDean E. H. K. Yen.\nBy invitation: Associate Vice-President N. Guppy, Dr. M. Chapman.\nRegrets: Dr. W. L. Sauder (Chancellor), Dean F. S. Abbott, Dr. R.W. Blake, Mr. P. T. Brady, Dr.\nH. M. Burt, Ms. E. J. Caskey, Mr. A. Chui, Ms. J. DeLucry, Ms. J. Dennie, Mr. E. Fidler, Dr. R.\nGoldman-Segall, Dr. D. Granot, Mr. H. D. Gray, Mr. E. Greathed, Rev. T. J. Hanrahan, Ms. L.\nHewalo, Mr. J. Kondopulos, Ms. P. Liu, Mr. R. W. Lowe, Dr. M. MacEntee, Mr. S. MacLachlan,\nMs. L. Morton, Dr. P. N. Nemetz, Dr. T. F. Pedersen, Dr. W. J. Phillips, Ms. C. Quinlan, Dr. V.\nRaoul, Dr. D. Sjerve, Ms. K. Sonik, Mr. J. E. Sookero, Ms. L. M. Sparrow, Mr. J. Tsui, Dr. W.\nUegama, Dr. W. C. Wright, Jr.\nSenate Membership\nMr. Timothy C. Y. Chan had replaced Mr. Adrian Mitchell as student representative of\nthe Faculty of Science. President Piper welcomed Mr. Chan to Senate.\nVol. 1999/2000 12251\n Vancouver Senate 12252\nMinutes of December 15,1999\nMinutes of the Previous Meeting\nMinutes of the Previous Meeting\nDean pro tem. Tully l That the minutes of the meeting of November\nDr. Fisher J 17, 1999 be adopted as circulated.\nCarried.\nBusiness Arising from the Minutes\nREPORT OF THE AD HOC COMMITTEE ON TEACHING QUALITY, EFFECTIVENESS,\nAND EVALUATION (PP. 12135-7)\nPlease see 'Appendix A: Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Teaching Quality,\nEffectiveness, and Evaluation'\nAs chair of the Committee, Dr. Guppy presented the report. The same report had been\ncirculated and received at the May 1999 meeting of the Senate. Dr. Guppy provided some\nbackground information on the Committee and its report. He pointed out that the report\ncovered sensitive material, including working conditions for faculty, teaching evaluation,\nand academic freedom.\nThe Committee began its work by examining several previous reports to Senate, along\nwith the Trek 2000 document, and the Academic Plan discussion paper. The Committee\nconducted a survey to evaluate the extent to which previous recommendations on\nteaching effectiveness and evaluation had been implemented. The survey determined that\nteaching evaluations are currently conducted in almost all courses. Most units use\nteaching evaluations in making decisions about merit and promotion, but the way in\nwhich this is done varies. The standards for what constitutes good teaching also vary\nconsiderably from unit to unit. There are some similar questions appearing on forms used\nby different units.\nDr. Guppy stated that the twelve recommendations at the end of the report represent\nsome suggestions for enhancing teaching at UBC, and added that the appendices to the\nreport list some best practices for consideration. The Committee understands that not all\nof the recommendations\n Vancouver Senate 12253\nMinutes of December 15,1999\nBusiness Arising from the Minutes\ncan be implemented in every unit across campus, and that they may need some fine tuning\nwithin and across Faculties. Referring to Recommendation 10, Dr. Guppy stated that the\nproposed report from the Vice-President, Academic and Provost in March 2000 would be\ntoo early. It was the wish of the Committee that this recommendation be amended to\ndelete the phrase '...at the March 2000 Senate meeting.'\nDr. Gilbert l That Senate accept the report.\nDean Klawe J\nDr. Patey asked whether approval of the motion would mean the acceptance of all details\nin the report, or whether the intent was to have the report examined further and returned\nto Senate at a later date. Dr. Guppy confirmed that, if Senate were to accept the report,\nthe Vice-President, Academic would be asked to report back to Senate on the\nimplementation of the recommendations.\nDean Isaacson stated that adoption of the report by Senate did not imply\nrecommendations to the Faculties. He remarked that in the past, however, the\nrecommendations in reports adopted by Senate have become mandatory. He expressed\nconcern that this would happen once again with this report. Dr. Guppy confirmed that it\nwas not the wish of the Committee that the recommendations be taken as mandatory\ninstructions to the Faculties. The Committee would like to see its recommendations\nimplemented to the extent that it is possible. Dr. Gilbert commented that the Committee\nfelt it important to make recommendations with associated actions, rather than simply\nmaking suggestions. Dr. Gilbert expressed support for the recommendations, as ways to\ndemonstrate our commitment to teaching and to respond to a number of outstanding\ncriticisms about teaching at UBC. There may be good reasons why some of the\nrecommendations cannot be accomplished, and it is the Committee's wish that those\nreasons be reported to the Senate. Mr. Podersky-Cannon stated that the report contained\nsome very clear recommendations for actions\n Vancouver Senate 12254\nMinutes of December 15,1999\nBusiness Arising from the Minutes\nto be taken by deans and heads of units, and that he expected to see a report to Senate on\nthe results.\nDean pro tem. Tully expressed concern about how the report would be implemented, and\nthat the recommendations could easily be viewed as UBC's guidelines for good teaching.\nHe stated that the principles contained in Appendix C do not address the issue of good\nteaching, but read instead like a manual. Some of the elements of good teaching have been\noverlooked, including imagination, interest, intellectual engagement, and the raising of\nquestions. Although the principles in Appendix C may encourage the establishment of\nminimum standards, they do not speak to what is really the essence of good teaching.\nReferring to Recommendation 1, Dean pro tem. Tully suggested the deletion of the word\n'appropriate.' He stated that he was not fully in favour of the use of a common set of\nquestions on evaluation forms, as they might lead to a certain illusion of certainty once\none conforms to a narrow standard. Common forms for all units would ignore the need\nto contextualize. Some common elements, or variations on common questions would be\nmore acceptable than a single, shared set of questions.\nMr. Burns spoke against the motion as presented. He agreed with Dean pro tem. Tully,\nand added that the document represented an enormous amount of work on behalf of the\nCommittee. He shared the concern that adoption of the motion on the floor would mean\nthat the recommendations would become the only standard against which UBC will\nmeasure teaching, regardless of the intentions of the Committee. The report seemed to\nsuggest that all teaching can be impressed upon a particular model and measured against\nthe criteria listed. Mr. Burns was also concerned that the actions in the report would lead\nto further bureaucratization of the activities of the University. He gave the example of the\nproposed creation of Faculty teaching development commit-\n Vancouver Senate 12255\nMinutes of December 15,1999\nBusiness Arising from the Minutes\ntees as being counterproductive. Faculty time would be better spent on teaching, rather\nthan on evaluating teaching. He requested clarification of the term 'teaching dossier.'\nDr. Hamilton noted that Recommendations 3, 4, and 7 through 12 appeared to be\nprocess-oriented, and could be approved by Senate. Recommendations 1, 2, 5, and 6, as\nthe motions causing the greatest concern, could be referred to the Provost and the\nCommittee of Deans for consideration and reporting back to Senate.\nIn response to a query from Dr. Tees, Dr. Guppy stated that the Committee had debated\nways of evaluating at a later date what students learn in a given class, but had not found\neffective strategies for long term tracking of students. In response to a second question\nfrom Dr. Tees, Dr. Guppy reported that the Committee had discussed the costs associated\nwith its recommendations, and had determined that none of the recommendations would\nbe prohibitively expensive for any one unit.\nMr. Tompkins spoke in support of a common evaluation form for all courses, and\nsuggested that all results be made available on the World Wide Web. He viewed these as\nways of becoming more accountable and transparent to students. He stated that, rather\nthan dividing up the motion, he would prefer that Senate send the report back to the\nCommittee for further deliberation.\nThere was discussion about the possibility that Senate would receive the report, rather\nthan vote on its recommendations. Dean Klawe spoke against receiving the report, stating\nthat several other committees had presented similar recommendations in the past, and\nthat the same recommendations would likely come forward again in the future. Dean\nKlawe stated that faculty are asked to review research activities in many different ways,\nand that some of that same rigour should be applied to teaching in order to ensure\nquality. She also expressed the preference for a\n Vancouver Senate\nMinutes of December 15,1999\n12256\nBusiness Arising from the Minutes\nsmall number of common questions to be used on evaluation forms, as well as a common\nevaluation scale.\nIn amendment.\nDr. Gilbert\nDean Klawe\nThat Senate accept recommendations 3, 4, and\n7-12, and;\nthat Senate instruct the Deans to report to the\nVice-President, Academic and Provost with\nrespect to the possible implementation of\nRecommendations 1,2, 5, and 6, and;\nthat the Vice-President, Academic report back\nto Senate.\nCarried.\nThe amended\nmotion was put\nand carried.\nADMISSIONS COMMITTEE: IMPLEMENTATION OF TOEFL REQUIREMENTS IN THE\nENGLISH LANGUAGE ADMISSION STANDARD (P. 12130-3)\nAs chair of the Committee, Dr. Lyster requested that the following motion be taken from\nthe table. A vote on the motion had been postponed at the November 17, 1999 meeting\nof Senate.\nDr. Lyster\nDr. Berger\nThat the proposed changes to the\nimplementation of the TOEFL requirements in\nthe English Language Admission Standard be\napproved.\nDr. Lyster reminded members of Senate that Dr. Knight had raised a question regarding\nwhether an investigation had taken place into tests of oral English proficiency other than\nthe Test of Spoken English (TSE). The Admissions Committee had agreed to look into\nwhether the Canadian English Language Test of Oral Proficiency (CELTOP), which is\nbeing developed by UBC Applied Research and Evaluation Services (ARES), could be\nsubstituted for the Test of Spoken English (TSE). Dr. Lyster reported that the\ninvestigation had not taken place. Dr. Lyster pointed\n Vancouver Senate 12257\nMinutes of December 15,1999\nBusiness Arising from the Minutes\nout that Dr. Knight's concerns did not directly relate to the motion under consideration.\nHe stated that approval of the motion did not preclude the acceptance of other tests,\nincluding the CELTOP, as they become available.\nDr. Knight expressed two concerns. First, he stated that he was opposed to waiving this\npart of the English Language Admission Standard. He explained that concerns regarding\nfacility in listening and speaking skills had been expressed by several Faculties to the\nSenate Admissions Committee (SAC), and that it had become clear that English language\nstandards were not being upheld. The requirement for a test of oral proficiency had been\napproved by the SAC and Senate as one way to address these important concerns. When\nit had become clear that there was not the adequate capacity to deliver the TSE to\napplicants in the Lower Mainland, Dr. Knight stated that the SAC had asked the Vice-\nPresident, Academic, the Registrar and the SAC Chair to meet with ARES to see whether\nthe CELTOP could be made available at an earlier date than first anticipated. Dr. Knight\nexpressed frustration that, five months later, this had not been done.\nSecond, Dr. Knight pointed out that the Registrar's Office had already effectively waived\nthe TSE requirement without prior approval by the Senate. Dr. Knight spoke against what\nhe described as a unilateral action on behalf of the Registrar's Office, as well as a lack of\nrespect for the democratic process of the Senate.\nDr. Lyster remarked that maintaining the admission requirements as approved by Senate\nwould mean that many otherwise qualified students would not meet UBC admission\nstandards. He added that the CELTOP test is not yet available as it is still under\ndevelopment.\nDr. Spencer responded that he, as Registrar, had taken the actions attributed by Dr.\nKnight to the Registrar's Office, and that he would take full responsibility for those\nactions. He explained that\n Vancouver Senate 12258\nMinutes of December 15,1999\nBusiness Arising from the Minutes\nhe understood that any action which resulted in Senate-approved rules not being applied\nconstituted a very serious matter. Before making the decision to defer the TSE\nrequirement, Dr. Spencer had sought advice from the Vice-President, Students, as well as\nthe Associate Vice-President, Academic Programs. Although Dr. Spencer had not\nrequested authorization to defer the TSE requirement, he stated that he did receive some\nencouragement for his suggested solution to the problem. He had also advised the chair of\nthe SAC that, due to insufficient TSE testing capacity, the requirement would be deferred.\nDr. Spencer added that he judged the regulation requiring the TSE to be a good\nregulation, but that he did not wish to penalize applicants unable to take the test. He\nemphasized that many students learn about UBC through interaction with student\nrecruiters, and it is therefore necessary that student recruiters are able to deliver clear\ninformation about admission requirements. If the motion before Senate were to be\ndefeated, the Registrar stated that Admissions would be forced to revert to the approved\npolicy.\nVice-President McBride spoke in support of the initiative taken by the Registrar. Senate\nhad made a decision to require the TSE without fully understanding the implications of\nthat decision, and when those implications became apparent, the appropriate action was\ntaken.\nMr. Podersky-Cannon, speaking on behalf of the convocation senators, expressed concern\nabout due process. He stated that good intentions should not justify dispensing with\nproper legal process. He spoke against the motion, adding that Senate's support of an\ninappropriate process would justify inappropriate processes at other levels. Given the\nimportance of English language proficiency, the TSE requirement should not be set aside\nfor administrative reasons.\nDean Klawe spoke in support of the motion and the actions of the Registrar, stating that\nSenate had made a mistake in approving a regulation that could not be implemented.\n Vancouver Senate 12259\nMinutes of December 15,1999\nChair's Remarks and Related Questions\nDr. Hannam drew attention to the fact that the proposed deferral of the TSE requirement\nwould be effective for the years 2000 and 2001. The two-year period would provide other\nagencies a chance to compete in the testing arena. UBC would revert to the original TSE\nrequirement in 2003.\nThe motion was\nput and carried.\nChair's Remarks and Related Questions\nTRIP TO TORONTO\nThe President described a recent visit to Toronto, where she was accompanied by nine\ndeans, one of the Vice-Presidents, and the President of the UBC Alumni Association.\nApproximately 400 people attended an evening alumni event. The group was busy\nthroughout the visit, making connections and developing cooperative arrangements.\nInterviews were conducted by the members of the press. The visit represents an attempt to\nconnect with central Canada, where UBC has not been particularly visible in the past. It is\nhoped that this visit will become an annual event.\nJOINT 2000/01 BUDGET SUBMISSION\nThe President reported briefly on a recent collective budget submission by British\nColumbian universities. The submission, along with a background document, has been\nmade publicly available on the World Wide Web. The proposal builds the case for\nadditional funding in the form of a five percent increase in general purpose operating\nfunds, as well as additional research infrastructure support. The document recommends\nthat the BC government adopt an arrangement similar to that of the Province of Quebec,\nwhere the Provincial government contributes 15 cents for every dollar of federal research\nfunding toward the hidden costs of research activities. The university presidents had\nrecently met with the Minister of Advanced Education, Training and\n Vancouver Senate 12260\nMinutes of December 15,1999\nReport from the Vice-President, Academic and Provost\nTechnology, and the President stated that they would continue to stress the need for\nincreased funding as the BC Provincial Government develops its 2000/01 budget.\nReport from the Vice-President, Academic and Provost\nFACULTY OF EDUCATION: NAME CHANGE FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE\nAND LITERACY EDUCATION\nVice-President McBride l That Senate approve the change in name from\nDean Sheehan i the Department of Language Education to the\n'Department of Language and Literacy\nEducation,' effective January 1, 2000.\nThe proposed acronym for the renamed Department was 'LLED.' Dr. Spencer pointed out\nthat the departmental acronym is an administrative matter to be determined by the\nRegistrar's Office, and not part of the proposal for approval by Senate.\nCarried.\nFrom the Board of Governors\nNotification of approval in principle of Senate recommendations: subject, where\napplicable, to the proviso that none of the programs be implemented without formal\nreference to the President, and that the Deans and Heads concerned with new\nprograms be asked to indicate the space requirements, if any, of such new programs.\ni. New Awards (p. 12183);\nii. The establishment of the BC Wine Research Centre (pp. 12134-5);\niii. The change in the name of the Department of Chemical and Bio-Resource\nEngineering to the Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering effective\nJanuary 1, 2000 (pp. 12135-6).\nAdmissions Committee\nDr. Lyster presented the reports, as chair of the Committee.\nFACULTY OF APPLIED SCIENCE: MINOR IN COMMERCE\nPresent Calendar Entry, page 103, column 3\nMinor in Commerce\n\"Students desiring a stronger foundation in business are encouraged to consider the Minor in\nCommerce. Upon successful completion of this Minor program, the notation 'Minor in\nCommerce' will be placed on the student's transcript.\n Vancouver Senate 12261\nMinutes of December 15,1999\nAdmissions Committee\nEnrolment in this program is limited. An application for admission can be obtained from\nEngineering Student Services in the Dean's office. The completed form must be returned by\nMay 15. For an application to be considered, the student must be eligible for third-year\nstanding in the Faculty of Applied Science with a cumulative average of at least 68% in the\nprevious two years. Meeting the stated minimum requirements does not guarantee admission\ninto the Minor.\"\nProposed Calendar Entry: (change shown in bold italics)\nMinor in Commerce\n\"Students desiring a stronger foundation in business are encouraged to consider the Minor in\nCommerce. Upon successful completion of this Minor program, the notation 'Minor in\nCommerce' will be placed on the student's transcript.\nEnrolment in this program is limited. An application for admission can be obtained from\nEngineering Student Services in the Dean's office. The completed form must be returned by\nMay 15. For an application to be considered, the student must be eligible for at least third-\nyear standing in the Faculty of Applied Science with a cumulative average of at least 68% in\nthe previous two years. Meeting the stated minimum requirements does not guarantee\nadmission into the Minor. Preference will be given to students who have already completed\nECON 309 or ECON 100.\"\nRationale:\nThere was considerable demand for this program when it was introduced last year. However,\na concern was that many students would not carry through with their original intention\nbecause of the workload. Students who have already completed ECON 100 are more likely to\ncomplete the minor. The admission process has also been opened up to upper-year students\nsince more of them will have completed ECON 100.\nDr. Lyster l That the proposed changes to the Calendar\nDean Isaacson i entry on admission to the Minor in Commerce\nbe approved.\nCarried.\nPROPOSAL TO CLARIFY ADMISSION DEADLINES\nThe Senate Admissions Committee recommends the following addition to the admissions\n1999/2000 Calendar Entry:\n\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Add to the Policy on Admissions after the third paragraph, page 63, 1999/2000\nCalendar:\n\"The number of new students that can be admitted to each program is dependent on a\nnumber of factors and is usually not known when the first offers of admission are\nmade. The chances of receiving an offer of admission may be increased by the early\nsubmission of an application and supporting documentation. Application and\ndocument deadlines are the latest dates on which an application or document will be\naccepted. Processing of applications does begin before these dates and in some\n Vancouver Senate 12262\nMinutes of December 15,1999\nCurriculum Committee\ncases programs may be filled by well qualified students before the document deadline.\"\n\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Add some similar wording at the start of the Application Deadlines section, page 11,\n1999/2000 Calendar:\n\"These deadlines are the latest dates on which an application or document will be\naccepted. Processing of applications does begin before these dates and in some cases\nprograms may be filled by well qualified students before the document deadline.\"\nRationale:\nAdmission offers to first year students commence in January and to college transfer students in\nFebruary before the enrolment targets set by the university for each program are finalized and\napproved. The early offers of admission to undergraduate degree programs are also made\nprior to application deadlines when the total number of applications, and possible large\nincreases in these numbers, are known.\nDr. Lyster l That the proposed changes to the Calendar\nDean Klawe J entry on admissions be approved.\nCarried.\nCurriculum Committee\nPlease see Appendix B: Summary of Curriculum Changes\nDr. Berger presented the report, as chair of the Committee. He described recent changes in\nthe curriculum approval process, which included a new Category 1/Category 2 distinction\nfor curriculum change proposals. Category 1 (formerly 'substantive') changes are those\nwhich have resource implications or require consultation outside the proposing Faculty.\nNew courses and new programs are examples of Category 1 proposals. All Category 1\nproposals must be approved by Senate. All other curriculum changes fall into the\nbroadened category of changes now known as Category 2 (formerly 'editorial'). Category\n2 changes are approved by the Editorial Sub-committee of the Curriculum Committee and\nthen forwarded directly to the editors of the Calendar.\n Vancouver Senate\nMinutes of December 15,1999\n12263\nCurriculum Committee\nFACULTY OF APPLIED SCIENCE\nDr. Berger l\nDean Isaacson J\nThat Senate approve the curriculum proposals\nfrom the Faculty of Applied Science.\nCarried.\nFACULTY OF COMMERCE\nDr. Berger\nDr. Hamilton\nThat Senate approve the proposed new course,\nCOMM 495: Business and Sustainable\nDevelopment, from the Faculty of Commerce\nand Business Administration.\nCarried.\nFACULTY OF EDUCATION\nDr. Berger\nDean Sheehan\nThat Senate approve the curriculum proposals\nfrom the Faculty of Education.\nDr. Berger introduced Dr. Marilyn Chapman, from the Faculty of Education, and invited\nquestions from members of Senate about the proposed revisions to the Teacher Education\nProgram. Dr. Berger commended the Faculty of Education on the clear presentation of\nthese complex proposals.\nCarried.\n Vancouver Senate\nMinutes of December 15,1999\n12264\nStudent Awards Committee\nFACULTY OF FORESTRY\nDr. Berger\nA/Dean McLean\nThat Senate approve the proposed new course,\nCONS 101: Introduction to Conservation and\nForest Sciences, from the Faculty of Forestry.\nCarried.\nFACULTY OF SCIENCE\nDr. Berger\nDean Klawe\nThat Senate approve the curriculum proposals\nfrom the Faculty of Science.\nCarried.\nStudent Awards Committee\nPlease see Appendix C: 'New Awards'\nDr. Thompson presented the report, as chair of the Committee.\nDr. Thompson\nDean Blom\nThat the new awards be accepted, and\nrecommended for approval by the Board of\nGovernors, and that letters of thanks be sent to\nthe donors.\nCarried.\nOther Business\nGENDER AND ENROLMENT\nDr. Williams, referring to the enrolment reports circulated by the Registrar at the\nNovember 17, 1999 meeting of Senate, remarked that the percentage of women students\nat UBC continues to increase. He noted that the percentage of female students has\nincreased even in Faculties such as Arts and Education, where male students are already a\ndistinct minority. He asked whether this trend had caused concern for the respective\ndeans of these Faculties. Dean Sheehan responded that the increase in women students in\nthe Faculty of Education was mainly in the Elementary Teacher Education Program. She\nadded that it remained difficult to attract men to elementary\n Vancouver Senate 12265\nMinutes of December 15,1999\nTributes Committee - in camera\nteaching, especially since the handling of young children by teachers is in question at all\ntimes. Dr. Lyster added that the Admissions Committee was in the process of reviewing a\nproposal from the Faculty of Education, which names male applicants to the Teacher\nEducation Program as one of the groups to which the Faculty would like to give priority.\nTributes Committee - in camera\nEMERITUS STATUS\nDr. Helliwell presented the report, as chair of the Committee. The following candidates\nfor emeritus status were presented for approval.\n1 Name\nProposed Rank (effective December 31, 1999) I\nANDREEN, Carol Inge\nAssistant Professor Emerita of Curriculum Studies\nBLOM, Margaret H.\nAssociate Professor Emerita of English\nDE BRUIJN, J. Erik\nAssistant University Librarian Emeritus\nEVANS, David L.\nAssociate Professor Emeritus of English\nFORBES, Jennifer\nGeneral Librarian Emerita\nHAINSWORTH, Geoffrey\nAssociate Professor Emeritus of Economics\nJULL, Edward V.\nProfessor Emeritus of Electrical Engineering\nMcPHAIL, John Donald\nProfessor Emeritus of Zoology\nMERIVALE, Patricia\nProfessor Emerita of English\nMUNRO, Gordon R.\nProfessor Emeritus of Economics\nORR, James\nAssociate Professor Emeritus of Pharmaceutical Sciences\nPASZNER, Laszlo\nProfessor Emeritus of Wood Science\nPHILLIPS, John E.\nProfessor Emeritus of Zoology\nRICHARDS, John S. F.\nAssociate Professor Emeritus of Opthamology\nROWLEY, Ann E.\nGeneral Librarian Emerita\nSOUDACK, Avrum C.\nProfessor Emeritus of Electrical Engineering\nTZE, Wah-Jun\nProfessor Emeritus of Paediatrics\nWINKLER, Earl R.\nProfessor Emeritus of Philosophy\n1 Name\nProposed Rank (effective June 30, 1999) I\nFROESE, Victor\nProfessor Emeritus of Language Education\n Vancouver Senate\nMinutes of December 15,1999\n12266\nAdjournment\nDr. Helliwell pointed out that Dr. Moira Diana Luke had been removed from the list that\nwas circulated, as Dr. Luke has not yet officially retired.\nDr. Helliwell\nDr. Slonecker\n}\nThat the recommendations of the Tributes\nCommittee concerning emeritus status be\napproved.\nCarried.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. The President wished all\nmembers of Senate a happy upcoming holiday and new year.\nNext meeting\nThe next regular meeting of Senate will be held on Wednesday, January 19, 2000 at 8:00\np.m.\n Vancouver Senate 12267\nMinutes of December 15,1999\nAppendix A\nAppendix A\nREPORT OF THE AD HOC COMMITTEE ON TEACHING QUALITY, EFFECTIVENESS,\nAND EVALUATION\nN.B.: Appendices to this report are not included in the minutes. Copies are available from\nthe Manager, Secretariat Services.\nReport of the Ad Hoc Senate Committee on Teaching Quality, Effectiveness, and\nEvaluation\nHistory: In 1991 a Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Teaching Evaluation recommended\nimprovements in the handling of teaching evaluations. In the fall of 1994 a subsequent committee\nwas charged with reviewing the procedures and policies. That committee reported in the spring of\n1996 (Gosline). More recently (1997) Senate struck another committee on teaching (the current\ncommittee), charged with reviewing progress in improving graduate and undergraduate teaching\nat UBC. In 1996 the Committee of Deans also constituted a committee to examine the issue of\nteaching valuation (Ungerleider).\nProcedure: We began by reviewing recommendations on teaching evaluation made in two\nprevious reports (see summary of these recommendations in Appendix F):\n1. Gosline report to Senate: Review of Teaching Evaluation (Feb., 1996)\n2. Ungerleider report to Committee of Deans (Oct. 1997)\nBoth reports contained numerous recommendations on teaching evaluation and the valuation of\nteaching.J We decided to proceed strategically by first considering the initial part of our mandate:\n\"progress made by the University in the area of teaching evaluation procedures.\" We did this by\nundertaking a survey, as described below. To proceed with the second part of our mandate,\nenhancing teaching quality and effectiveness, we chose to examine several possible \"best practice\"\ninitiatives. We report on these initiatives after considering responses to our survey questions about\nteaching evaluation procedures.\nProgress in Teaching Evaluation: In considering this part of our mandate we surveyed teaching\nunits on campus to learn more about how teaching is evaluated and how the results of evaluation\nare used. In particular we canvassed the campus community, at the level of both Faculties/Schools\nas well as Departments/Programs, to ascertain the influence of earlier recommendations. Guided\nby the recommendations in the Gosline and Ungerleider reports, survey questions were designed\nto address core issues raised in these previous initiatives. The results of this survey work, and our\ndeliberations as a result of the responses, are reported on in detail in Appendix A.\n1 For our purposes we understood teaching to include, but not be limited to: teaching undergraduate,\ngraduate, and professional courses; supervising student projects/theses, and developing course curriculum.\nWe focused mainly on the first of these.\n Vancouver Senate 12268\nMinutes of December 15,1999\nAppendix A\nThe survey results can be summarized as follows:\nThe use of student evaluations of teaching is now widespread at UBC. Although in some courses\nevaluations are not conducted (e.g., directed studies courses), our results suggest that for all\ncourses in which such evaluation is appropriate, it is conducted. For academic units making\nrecommendations on merit or career progress salary increments (not all do: e.g., Arts One), the\nvast majority of units report using teaching evaluations as part of the decision criteria. While\nquality of teaching is increasingly recognized in these decisions, other survey responses suggested\nto us that we all need to be more alert to the recognition of teaching, via local, national, and\ninternational prizes.\nThe public availability of student evaluations of teaching is not as widespread as would be\nappropriate. This is more a consequence of students not knowing that such information is\navailable if they ask, than it is of units refusing to release this information. Some attention to\npublicity needs to be undertaken.\nOn the survey we asked about the criteria for effective teaching and the standards for judging\nquality teaching. The results suggested to us that there is room for improvement here and so as\npart of our subsequent work, we undertook to devise some principles and practices that reflect\ngood teaching (see below).\nThe survey requested that all units supply us with the forms used for students to evaluate\nteaching. Prompted by one of our respondents, we undertook a close reading of the questions\nalready used across campus and found that many questions appear on most forms. While we do\nnot think that it would be wise for UBC to adopt a standard form for all teaching units, we do\nthink that using a common core set of questions on all forms would be warranted. We say this for\ntwo main reasons: it allows for common assessment across teaching units when such comparison\nis warranted (as in promotion and tenure or in nominating colleagues for national or international\nteaching prizes) and it gives students from all faculties a common base on which to use teaching\nevaluation information. In Appendix B we have proposed a set of common core questions.\nPeer evaluation of teaching is also something that is increasingly common although here we found\nthat practices vary widely. Again one of the respondents prompted us to consider the quality of\npeer review and toward the goal of improving such evaluation, we propose guidelines that\nteaching units could adopt, or revise as necessary, to help colleagues engaging in the peer review\nof teaching (see Appendix E).\nWhile we are stressing teaching more in our hiring procedures, we also have an obligation to\nensure that our own graduate students are receiving the instruction in teaching that we would like\nto see in the new colleagues we hire. Our effectiveness here is mixed and we believe that more\nsupport for teaching preparation among our graduate student populations would be useful. We\nsay this because such preparation would both benefit our undergraduates, many of whom take\ncourses in which all or part of the teaching is done by graduate students, and our graduates, the\nmajority of whom seek teaching-related jobs (we note here the introduction by TAG of a\n Vancouver Senate 12269\nMinutes of December 15,1999\nAppendix A\nCertificate Program for Graduate Students).\nFinally, we also wish to note two other issues related to student evaluations of teaching that arose\nin the course of our deliberations. First, we heard of instances where one student completed more\nthan one teaching evaluation form for a course. This is a form of fraud about which we need to be\nvigilant if the teaching evaluation process is to remain viable. (Ways to discourage this include\nhaving serial numbers on forms, counting forms distributed and returned, and generally being\nvigilant and professional in our procedures.) Second, we also want to encourage the use of\nevaluation mechanisms for diagnostic reasons, not just for reasons of performance review.\nIncreasing numbers of colleagues are distributing a tailor made feedback form in their classes to\nencourage early comments from students that can be used to make improvements in the course.\nThis is a very good idea that we would like to encourage.\nEnhancing Teaching Quality and Effectiveness\nAs a consequence of what we learned from the survey we pursued four separate initiatives:\n1. What constitutes effective teaching?\nAfter reviewing the literature on teaching criteria we constructed a set of principles and practices\nwhich we believe represent core features of effective university teaching, and which when followed\nappropriately, lead to the best learning outcomes for our students. We have circulated these\ncriteria for comment among selected colleagues2 at UBC and we have incorporated their\nsuggestions into the final version that appears in Appendix C. We feel these principles and\npractices could be used in a variety of circumstances, including the following:\n\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 As exemplars for improving teaching\n\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 As exemplars for new instructors\n\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 As criteria to guide the evaluation of teaching\n2. If we built on common questions that now exist on most Faculty student evaluations of\nteaching, what might a set of common core elements look like?\nAs we noted above, some very similar questions appear on almost every form used by students\nwhen evaluating teaching at UBC (see Appendix B). Systematizing these questions would be useful\nso that when we evaluate teaching, we have some commonality in our measuring instrument. We\nsuggest that minor modifications be made on all UBC forms for the student evaluation of teaching\nso that we use identical question wording and a common scale to collect evaluations, for a set of\ncore questions. Student evaluation of teaching forms used by Faculties and Schools would retain\nother questions that measure important aspects of teaching that are\n2 These colleagues (29 in total) were purposely chosen to reflect experience levels and academic diversity.\nWe are grateful for their constructive commentary.\n Vancouver Senate 12270\nMinutes of December 15,1999\nAppendix A\noutside this common core, and are often specific to different academic units (this strategy\naddresses important objections to the common core idea noted on our survey).\nAs with our teaching principles and practices we have asked selected colleagues for feedback, and\ntheir comments are reflected in the question wording and format we propose. The majority of\ncolleagues supported the idea of common questions. Objections were limited to worries about any\ntype of numerical summation of teaching quality.\n3. What are basic principles and guidelines that ought to be considered in peer review\nteaching?\nSome Departments and Faculties already have guidelines for the peer review of teaching, but the\nmajority do not. We have drafted \"Suggested Principles and Guidelines for the Peer Review of\nTeaching\" (Appendix E) with the intent of providing some guidelines that might be used by\nDeans, Heads, and Directors to enhance the utility of peer reviews of teaching.\n4. How should Heads/Directors respond to relatively poor or very good teaching reviews?\nOn our survey questionnaire, a few respondents noted that they did not have specific standards\nfor satisfactory teaching. One Head noted that some ideas on how to respond to weak teaching\nscores would be helpful. We note, in Appendix D, some ideas about how Heads/Directors (or\nothers) could respond to either strong or weak teaching assessments.\nRecommendations\n1. That the \"Common elements on Student Evaluation of Teaching Forms\" (Appendix B)\nshould be included on all appropriate UBC evaluation forms (Action: VP Academic and\nProvost).\n2. That \"Effective Teaching Principles and Practices\" (Appendix C) be adopted by Faculties\nas the basis for their criteria of effective teaching (Action: Deans).\n3. That \"Effective Teaching Principles and Practices\" (Appendix C) be circulated to all\nmembers of faculty including tenured, tenure track, and sessionals (Action:\nDeans/Heads/Directors).\n4. That all academic units review their procedures to ensure that students are made aware of\nthe availability of student evaluations of teaching, as appropriate (Action: Deans).\n5. That a short diagnostic evaluation of teaching (for the instructor's own purposes) be given\nto students after about 25% of a course is completed (Action: Deans/Heads/Directors).\n6. That academic units, alone or in combination, have or use existing credit courses on\neffective teaching for graduate students, and especially for graduate student teaching\nassistants (Action: Deans).\n7. That \"Responding to Information from Evaluations of Teaching\" (Appendix D) be\ncirculated to all Heads and Directors (Action: Deans).\n8. That \"Suggested Principles and Guidelines for the Peer Review of Teaching\" (Appendix E)\nbe circulated to\n Vancouver Senate 12271\nMinutes of December 15,1999\nAppendix A\nall Heads and Directors (Action: Deans).\n9. That this report, including the Appendices, be made available on the Web site of the\nCentre for Teaching and Academic Growth (Action: Director TAG).\n10. That the VP Academic report on the implementation of these recommendations (Action:\nVP Academic).\n11. That the VP Academic report annually to Senate on teaching quality, effectiveness, and\nevaluation, and on the extent to which the university is reaching its learning goals (Action:\nVP Academic).\n12. That the Ad Hoc Senate Committee on Teaching Quality, Effectiveness, and Evaluation be\ndissolved (Action: Senate).\n Vancouver Senate 12272\nMinutes of December 15,1999\nAppendix B\nAppendix B\nSUMMARY OF CURRICULUM CHANGES\nAll proposals are to be effective September 2000, unless otherwise indicated.\nCategory 1 Changes (for approval by Senate)\nFaculty of Applied Science\nChemical and Biological Engineering\nNew courses CHBE 254, CHBE 330, CHBE 344.\nNew courses, effective September 2001 CHBE 444, CHBE 456, CHBE 482.\nElectrical and Computer Engineering\nNew courses, effective September 2000 EECE 321, EECE 369, EECE 375, EECE\n415.\nNew program Software Engineering Option\nEngineering Physics\nRevisions to Fifth year,\nRevisions to Honours Mathematics Option.\nMechanical Engineering\nNew courses MECH 303, MECH 458.\nNew program Thermofluids Option.\nProgram changes B.A.Sc./M.Eng. in Electro-Mechanical Design Engineering,\nSecond year - Electro-Mechanical Design Engineering,\nThird year - Electro-Mechanical Design Engineering\nProgram changes, effective September 2001 Third year - Electro-Mechanical Design\nEngineering.\n Vancouver Senate 12273\nMinutes of December 15,1999\nAppendix B\nProgram changes, effective September 2002 Fourth year - Electro-Mechanical Design\nEngineering,\nFifth year - Electro-Mechanical Design\nEngineering.\nMining and Mineral Process Engineering\nNew course MMPE 305\nFaculty of Commerce and Business Administration\nNew course COMM 495\nFaculty of Education\nProgram changes Revisions to Teacher Education Program, revisions to related\ndegree requirements and Calendar entries.\nEducational and Counselling Psychology and Special Education\nNew course ECPS 300\nEducational Studies\nNew course EDST 400\nCurriculum Studies\nNew courses CUST 300, ARTE 300, MAED 300, MUED 300, PETE 300,\nSCED 300, SSED 300, TSED 320, CUST 314.\nCourse changes ARTE 314, BUED 314, CSED 314, HMED 314, MAED 314,\nMUED 314, PETE 314, SSED 317: change credits and hours,\nomit description and co-requisite.\nCUST 414: change title, hours, and pre-requisite, omit\ndescription.\nSCED 312, SCED 313: change title and hours, omit\ndescription and co-requisite.\nSCED 314, SCED 315, SCED 316, SCED 317: change hours,\nomit descriptions and co-requisite.\n Vancouver Senate\nMinutes of December 15,1999\n12274\nAppendix B\nSSED 312: change number, credits and hours, omit\ndescription and co-requisite.\nTSED 314: change title, credits, and hours, omit description\nand co-requisite.\nLanguage and Literacy Education\nNew courses\nCourse changes\nFaculty of Forestry\nNew course\nLLED 300, LLED 321, LLED 322, LLED 324, LLED 336,\nLLED 456, LLED 439, EDUC 300, EDUC 301, EDUC 302,\nEDUC 303, EDUC 400, EDUC 401, EDUC 402, EDUC 403.\nLANE 426: change subject code, number, title, hours,\ndescription.\nMLED 312, LANE 314, MLED 318: change subject code,\ncredits, hours, omit description and co-requisite.\nLANE 313: change subject code, title, credits, hours, prerequisites, omit description and co-requisite.\nCONS 101.\nFaculty of Science\nComputer Science\nNew course CPSC 444.\nEarth and Ocean Sciences\nNew course EOSC 473.\nMicrobiology and Immunology\nNew course MICB 405.\nCourse change MICB 153: change description and hours.\n Vancouver Senate\nMinutes of December 15,1999\n12275\nAppendix B\nPhysics and Astronomy\nNew course\nCourse change\nProgram changes\nPHYS 407.\nPHYS 251: change title, number, credits, hours and\ndescription.\nChanges to Calendar entries on Upper-level Requirement and\nOther Credit Allowances.\nAdd minor in Science, changes to Calendar entry on Minor\nPrograms.\nChanges to Calendar entries on Minor in Arts and Minor in\nCommerce.\nCategory 2 Changes (for information only)\nFaculty of Commerce and Business Administration\nCourse changes COMM 437: change in credit exclusion.\nFaculty of Education\nCurriculum Studies\nCourse changes ARTE 300, MAED 300, MUED 300, PETE 300, SCED 300,\nSSED 300, TSED 320: change title.\nARTE 425, MAED 372, MAED 373: change description,\ntitle, pre-requisite, and vectors.\nMAED 471, MUED 308, MUED 335, MUED 336, SSED\n324: change description, pre-requisite, vectors.\nMAED 488, PETE 326: change description, number, prerequisite, and vectors.\nMUED 307: change description, number, pre-requisite, title,\nand vectors.\nPETE 327: change description, number, and pre-requisite.\nSCED 330, SCED 331, SCED 409: change pre-requisite, title,\nand vectors.\nSSED 421: change pre-requisite and title.\nCourse changes, second submission\nARTE 425: change pre-requisite, vectors, description and title.\nMAED 372, MAED 471, MUED 336, SSED 324: change prerequisites, vectors, omit description.\n Vancouver Senate\nMinutes of December 15,1999\n12276\nAppendix B\nMAED 373: change pre-requisites, vectors, title, omit\ndescription.\nMAED 488, PETE 400: change pre-requisites, vectors,\nnumber, omit description.\nMUED 307: change pre-requisites, vectors, number and title.\nMUED 308: change number, vectors, add pre-requisite.\nMUED 335: change number, pre-requisites, and vectors.\nPETE 401: change pre-requisites, number, omit description.\nSCED 330,SCED 331, SCED 400: change pre-requisites,\nvectors, and title.\nSSED 421: change pre-requisites, number and title.\nEducational and Counselling Psychology and Special Education\nDelete courses\nCourse changes\nEPSE 422, EPSE 428, EPSE 429, EPSE 434, EPSE 435.\nEPSE 433, ARTE 300, MAED 300, MUED 300, PETE 300,\nSCED 300, SSED 300, TSED 320: change title.\nEPSE 436: change pre-requisite and title.\nEPSE 437, EPSE 455: change description and pre-requisite.\nEPSE 448: change pre-requisite.\nECPS 300: change credits (later rescinded - credits to remain\nas 5)\nEducational Studies\nCourse changes\nEDST 400: change credits (later rescinded\nas 5.\ncredits to remain\nLanguage and Literacy Education\nDelete courses LANE 320, LANE 475, MLED 311, MLED 313, MLED 314,\nMLED 315, MLED 316, MLED 317, MLED 319, MLED\n394.\nCourse changes\nENED 449, MLED 449, READ 449: change description,\nnumber, subject code, and title.\nLANE 206: change co-requisite and subject code.\nLANE 226, LANE 337, LANE 486: change hours and subject\ncode.\n Vancouver Senate 12277\nMinutes of December 15,1999\nAppendix B\nLANE 333, LANE 334, LANE 335, LANE 480: change\ndescription, hours, subject code, and title.\nLANE 338, MLED 320, MLED 340, MLED 393, MLED\n480: change description, hours, number, subject code, and\ntitle.\nLANE 340, LANE 341, LANE 345, LANE 349, LANE 360,\nLANE 389, LANE 416, MLED 489, READ 477: change\ndescription, hours, number, and subject code.\nLANE 342, LANE 343, LANE 344, LANE 473, LANE 477:\nchange description, hours, number, pre-requisite, and subject\ncode.\nLANE 346: change description, hours, pre-requisite, number,\nsubject code, and title.\nLANE 379: change hours, number, and subject code.\nLANE 382, MLED 396: change description, hours, number,\nand subject code.\nLANE 391: change description, hours, pre-requisite, and\nsubject code.\nLANE 481, LANE 489: change description, hours, and\nsubject code.\nLANE 392, LANE 320: change description, hours, prerequisite, and subject code.\nLANE 435: change credits, description, hours, pre-requisite,\nsubject code, and vectors.\nLANE 472, LANE 474: change description, hours, number,\nsubject code, and title.\nLANE 478: change co-requisite, hours, pre-requisite, and\nsubject code.\nLANE 310: change description, hours, and subject code.\nLIBE 381, LIBE 385, LIBE 387: change description, hours,\nand number.\nLIBE 383: change description, hours, number, and title.\nLIBE 384, LIBE 386, LIBE 388: change description, hours,\nnumber, and pre-requisite.\nLIBE 449: change description, number, and title.\nAdditional changes, second LLED submission\nLANE 391, LANE 392: change pre-requisite.\nLANE 435: change credits, pre-requisite, and vectors.\nLLED 391, LLED 392: change pre-requisite.\nLLED 435: change pre-requisite, credits and vectors.\nTEO/NITEP\nCourse changes EDUC 143, EDUC 244: change credits and title.\nEDUC 441, EDUC 442: change description, hours, and title.\n Vancouver Senate\nMinutes of December 15,1999\n12278\nAppendix B\nFaculty of Forestry\nProgram changes\nDelete courses\nCourse changes\nWood Products Processing, 2nd year: delete WOOD 241.\nB.Sc. (Natural Resources Conservation), Forest\nScience/International Forestry, Forest Science, Forest\nResources Management, Forest Resources\nManagement/International Forestry, Three-Year Program for\nBC Forestry Technology Graduates, Forest Operations,\nStudents Entering as Forestry Technology Graduates, B.Sc. in\nWood Products Processing: add footnote.\nB.Sc. in Natural Resources Conservation: add CONS 101,\nchange total number of first year credits to 31, change\nwording of degree requirements.\nB.Sc. in Natural Resources Conservation: change footnote #2\nof Program chart.\nCONS 430, WOOD 482.\nFRST 305, FRST 395, FRST 495, CONS 330, CONS 340:\nadd pre-requisites.\nWOOD 476: change description.\nFaculty of Science\nCourse changes BIOL 327: reinstate.\nBIOL 330: change title.\nCHEM 411, CHEM 416, CHEM 435, CPSC 216, CPSC\n315,: change description.\nCHEM 414: change description and title.\nCPSC 220: change description and pre-requisite.\nCPSC 304, CPSC 310, CPSC 319, CPSC 320, CPSC 410:\nchange pre-requisite.\nPairing list change (p. 315, col. 3)\nBiology\nReplace footnote 2b for the following:\nMajor: Animal Biology\nMajor: Cell Biology and Genetics\nMajor: Conservation Biology\nMajor: Ecology and Environmental Biology\nProgram changes\n Vancouver Senate\nMinutes of December 15,1999\n12279\nAppendix B\nComputer Science\nProgram change\nEarth and Ocean Sciences\nDelete courses\nCourse changes\nGeography\nDelete courses\nCourse changes\nProgram change\nMajor: General Biology\nMajor: Marine Biology\nMajor: Plant Biology\nCalendar entry p. 349, col. 3.\nGEOL 256, GEOL 333, GEOL 354, GEOL 428, GEOP 448,\nGEOP 449, GEOP 499, OCGY 406, OCGY 408, OCGY 415,\nOCGY 448, OCGY 449.\nATSC 200: change description and pre-requisite.\nEOSC 100, EOSC 355: change number.\nGEOL 100, GEOL 150, GEOL 200, GEOL 202, GEOL 205,\nGEOL 235, GEOL 302, GEOL 303, GEOL 307, GEOL 308,\nGEOL 313, GEOL 323, GEOL 335, GEOL 342, GEOL 351,\nGEOL 368, GEOL 402, GEOL 406, GEOL 407, GEOL 415,\nGEOL 421, GEOL 425, GEOL 438, GEOL 441, GEOL 442,\nGEOL 443, GEOL 444, GEOL 446, GEOL 452, GEOL 462,\nGEOL 499, GEOP 120, GEOP 230, GEOP 231, GEOP 232,\nGEOP 300, GEOP 301, GEOP 320, GEOP 321, GEOP 322,\nGEOP 420, GEOP 421, GEOP 422, GEOP 426, OCGY 100,\nOCGY 308, OCGY 309, OCGY 403, OCGY 404, OCGY\n407, OCGY 410, OCGY 412, OCGY 413, OCGY 414,\nOCGY 420: change subject code and number.\nGEOL 301: change subject code, number and pre-requisite.\nGEOL 309, GEOL 420: change subject code, number, title\nand description.\nGEOL 448: change subject code and title.\nGEOL 449: change subject code.\nGEOG 403.\nGEOG 200: change description and pre-requisite.\nCalendar entry p. 327, col. 1-3.\n Vancouver Senate\nMinutes of December 15,1999\n12280\nAppendix B\nMathematics\nCourse changes MATH 200, MATH 215, MATH 217, MATH 230, MATH\n231, MATH 255, MATH 256: change description.\nMicrobiology and Immunology\nCourse changes\nProgram changes\nPhysics and Astronomy\nDelete courses\nMICB 318: change title, description, hours and pre-requisite.\nMICB 400: change number and hours.\nMICB 408: change number.\nMajor: Microbiology and Immunology (p. 332 col. 3, p. 333,\ncol. 1).\nCourse changes\nPHYS 141, PHYS 142, PHYS 306, PHYS 353, PHYS 411,\nPHYS 414, PHYS 421, PHYS 475.\nPHYS 170: change description.\nPHYS 206, PHYS 301: change pre-requisite.\nPHYS 259: change hours and credits.\nPHYS 309: change title, credits, description, hours, and prerequisite.\nPHYS 319: change title, description, hours, and pre-requisite.\nPHYS 351: change number.\nPHYS 251: change number, credits, and hours.\nChange to Pairing List (p. 315, col. 3)\nProgram changes Honours: Physics (p. 336, col. 3).\nHonours: Physics and Astronomy (p. 337, col. 1).\nMajor: Physics (p. 336, col. 2).\n Vancouver Senate\nMinutes of December 15,1999\n12281\nAppendix B\nPsychology\nNew courses\nCourse changes\nDean's Office\nProgram changes\nPSYC 364, PSYC 368, PSYC 461.\nPSYC 307: change credits, description, number, and prerequisite.\nPSYC 363: change title, credits, description, and pre-requisite.\nPSYC 355, PSYC 313: change title, description, number, and\nhours.\nPSYC 460: change title, credits, description, number and\nhours.\nStudent Academic Performance, Science Scholar and Dean's\nHonour List.\nArts or Science Breadth Requirement.\n Vancouver Senate 12282\nMinutes of December 15,1999\nAppendix C\nAppendix C\nNEW AWARDS\nEdith Eleanor BLUSSON Memorial Scholarship-A $2,400 scholarship has been endowed\nby The University of British Columbia in appreciation of Dr. Stewart and Mrs. Marilyn\nBlusson's generous support. The award is in memory of Dr. Blusson's mother and is\noffered to an undergraduate student entering the University from secondary school or\ncollege. (Available 1999/2000 Winter Session)\nMay DUNCAN Memorial Bursary-A $300 bursary has been endowed in memory of May\nDuncan by her family and is offered to a student in any program and year of study.\n(Available 2000/2001 Winter Session)\nGeorge K. FUJISAWA Q.C. Memorial Scholarship-A $6,000 scholarship has been\nendowed in memory of George Kiyoshi Fujisawa, Q.C, by Davis & Company, Barristers\n& Solicitors, and enhanced by a number of Mr. Fujisawa's valued clients. The award is\noffered to an outstanding student entering Law and is made on the recommendation of\nthe Faculty of Law. ($5,000 available 1999/2000 Academic Session)\nBalvinder GAKHAL Memorial Award in Pharmaceutical Sciences-A $300 award has been\nendowed by friends and colleagues in memory of Balvinder Gakhal. The award is offered\nto a third year student in Pharmaceutical Sciences in good academic standing who\ndemonstrates leadership skills in pharmacy or university organizations and participates in\nvolunteer activities. Students should apply to the Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences to be\nconsidered for the award. The award is made on the recommendation of the Faculty.\n(Available 1999/2000 Winter Session)\nEirwen Megan HAMILTON Scholarship-A $1,100 scholarship has been endowed\nthrough a bequest by Eirwen Megan Hamilton and is offered to a student in any year and\nprogram of study. (Available 2000/2001 Winter Session)\nEirwen Megan HAMILTON Scholarship in Music-A $1,100 scholarship has been\nendowed through a bequest by Eirwen Megan Hamilton for a student in Music. The\naward is made on the recommendation of the School of Music, and in the case of\ngraduate students, in consultation with the Faculty of Graduate Studies. (Available\n2000/20001 Winter Session)\nIan S. ROSS Memorial Award in Engineering-Two awards of $500 each have been\nendowed by family, friends, colleagues, and Westmar Consultants Inc. in memory of Ian\nS. Ross. The awards are offered to students who demonstrate initiative, leadership and\ninvolvement in extra-curricular activities. One award is offered to a student in Mechanical\nEngineering, the other to a student in Civil Engineering. The awards are made on the\nrecommendation of the respective departments. (Available 1999/2000 Winter Session)\nSENTINEL Prize in Anthropology-A $300 prize has been endowed by members of the fan\nclub of \"The Sentinel\", a television production filmed on campus. The award is offered to\na student specializing in Anthropology and is made on the recommendation of the\nDepartment of Anthropology and Sociology and, in the case of graduate students, in\nconsultation with the Faculty of Graduate Studies. (Available 1999/2000 Winter Session)\n Vancouver Senate 12283\nMinutes of December 15,1999\nAppendix C\nSandy SILVER Memorial Volleyball Award-One or more awards, which may range from\na minimum value of $500 each to the maximum allowable under athletic association\nregulations, have been endowed in memory of Sandy Silver. Awards are offered to\nstudents, in any year of study, who are outstanding members of the Thunderbird\nWomen's Varsity Volleyball team. The awards are made on the recommendation of the\nPresident's Athletic Awards Committee. (Available 1999/2000 Winter Session)\nHarry and Martha Virginia SMALL Bursary in Medicine-Bursaries totalling $3,000 have\nbeen endowed through a bequest by Martha Virginia Small for students in Medicine.\n(Partial funding available 1999/2000 Winter Session)\nHarry and Martha Virginia SMALL Scholarship in Medicine-Scholarships totalling\n$3,000 have been endowed through a bequest by Martha Virginia Small for students in\nMedicine. The awards are made on the recommendation of the Faculty. (Partial funding\navailable 1999/2000 Winter Session)\nEthlyn TRAPP Memorial Scholarship in Medicine-Scholarships totalling $1,500 have\nbeen endowed by the British Columbia members of the Federation of Medical Women of\nCanada in memory of Dr. Ethlyn Trapp. The awards are offered to students in second,\nthird or fourth year Medicine, with preference given to students with demonstrated\ninterest in women's health. The awards are made on the recommendation of the Faculty\nof Medicine. (Available 2000/2001 Winter Session)\nUNIVERSITY of B.C. Wood Products Processing Awards-Awards totalling $18,400 are\noffered to undergraduate students in Wood Products Processing and are made on the\nrecommendation of the Department of Wood Science. (Available 1999/2000 Winter\nSession)\nWELDWOOD of Canada Limited H. Richard Whittall Scholarship-Scholarships totalling\n$6,000 have been endowed by Weldwood of Canada Limited in honour of H. Richard\nWhittall. The awards are offered to students studying Forest Ecosystem Management.\nAwards are made on the recommendation of the Faculty of Forestry and, in the case of\ngraduate students, in consultation with the Faculty of Graduate Studies. (Available\n1999/2000 Winter Session)\nFOR INFORMATION ONLY - Now endowed\n2353 PACIFIC Regeneration Technologies Inc. Silviculture Scholarship-A $1,150\nscholarship has been endowed by Pacific Regeneration Technologies Inc. The award is\noffered in alternating years to the top undergraduate student in forestry studying\nsilviculture and forest seedling culture and to the top undergraduate student in\nagricultural sciences studying Plant Breeding and Biotechnology. The award is made on\nrecommendation of the Faculty of Forestry and Faculty of Agricultural Sciences.\nApproved by Senate Committee on Student Awards\nNovember 29, 1999\n"@en . "Periodicals"@en . "Vancouver (B.C.)"@en . "UBC_Senate_Minutes_1999_12_15"@en . "10.14288/1.0390072"@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 .