Board of Governors, May 3, 2001 - APPENDIX VIII (Addendum Included)
Recommended: That the Board of Governors approve the establishment of the Royal Bank Financial Group Foundation Economic Policy Research Institute (to be commonly known as the Economic Policy Research Institute or EPRI) as a Type 3 research entity, as described in the attached Constitution (Annex 1).
In March of 1987, Senate approved a policy for the establishment and designation of collaborative research groups at Western (S.4256). This policy divided such groups into four types, based upon scope, reporting structures and sources of funding. The policy (Guidelines for Collaborative Research, Policy 7.9) defines the various "Types" of research entities. Relevant to the proposal to establish the EPRI are the following:
Type 3: A collaborative research venture with formal recognition of Senate and Board of Governors. There is an administrative structure, a budget and possibly some assignment of space. The Director is appointed according to procedures approved by Senate. Such collaborative research ventures should be designated as Centres.
Type 4: A research organization having a formal agreement with the University and funded from external sources, including capital costs, salaries of the Director and staff, and operating costs. Only Type 4 units can be called Institutes.
Approval of the recommendation effectively grants an exception to the nomenclature prescribed in the Guidelines by allowing a Type 3 entity to be called an "Institute".
The policy established in 1987 has served the University well over the years, but requires close review to see if it is meeting current needs. This review will be undertaken shortly by the Office of the Vice-President (Research) and the result may be major amendments. For example, the various "Types" may be redefined or superseded by some other classification concept, and the current constraints on "Centre" and "Institute" nomenclature could cease to be an issue.
The Operating and Capital Budgets and setting of tuition fees are in the purview of the Board of Governors. The Senate may provide its advice to the Board under the authority of Section 30.(f) of the UWO Act:
The Senate may ...
pass resolutions and make recommendations to the Board with respect to any matter connected with the administration of the University and the promotion of its affairs but this clause shall not be construed to subtract from the powers and duties conferred on the Board elsewhere in [the] Act.
At a meeting held on April 20, 2001, the Senate reviewed the draft Operating and Capital Budgets and Tuition Fees. During discussion, two proposals were debated and subsequently defeated:
Ultimately, Senate approved a resolution that Senate provide advice to the Board of Governors, through the Vice-Chancellor, recommending the approval of the 2001-02 University Operating and Capital Budgets as presented.
On March 23, Senate approved the establishment of the Royal Bank Financial Group Foundation Fellow & Executive Director of the Economic Policy Research Institute (EPRI) and the Royal Bank Financial Group Foundation Post-Doctoral Fellow in Political Economy in support of the Economic Policy Research Institute (see above). The terms of reference of the faculty fellowship and post-doctoral fellowship are contained in the Report of the Property & Finance Committee (Appendix III for this meeting).
On March 23, 2001, Senate approved a new general structure for the bachelor's degree at Western as described below, the implementation of which will be determined by the Provost, in consultation with Deans and the Office of the Registrar.
In 1998 the Senate Committee on Academic Policy and Awards (SCAPA), in reaction to the report of the Provost's Advisory Committee on Undergraduate Degrees and Programs (PACUDP), set in motion a process aimed at a broad reform of the University's undergraduate programs. The broad purposes of this reform are:
a) to lessen the very sharp cleavage at Western between the Honors programs and the three-year programs, a cleavage which often seems to divide the undergraduate student body into a highly privileged class and a very underprivileged class;
b) to find a way in which 'honor' - a strong academic reputation and a high standard of expected student achievement - might attach to a relatively broad program of study, as well as to a highly concentrated one;
c) to bring some overall order into what has become a bewilderingly complex set of programs whose broad structure is not easily discernible from the calendar descriptions;
d) to accomplish these changes without compromising the best of the arrangements now in place.
SCAPA's work, through its Subcommittee on Undergraduate Program Reform, was to devise such a structural reform, to bring it forward to the University community, to seek the community's reactions, to consider the results of this consultation, and to revise its proposal before bringing it to the Senate for approval.
This process of consultation was long, detailed, and extensive.
Three versions of this reform were floated, in the winter term of 1999, the winter of 2000, and the autumn of 2000. The first version was bold in structure but was widely perceived as too disruptive to some of the excellent honors programs now in place; it also drew from a number of colleagues the expression of a hope that, while we were at the business of program reform, we might try to do something strong-minded and distinctive to ensure the general education of Western students - an element which has all but evaporated from many of Western's degrees.
The second version was more moderate in the structural revisions it contained, but it had, integrated into it, a proposed obligatory Core Program. In the consultation the Core Program was strongly opposed; half of the opposition was to the very idea of imposing breadth of study, and the other half favoured the idea of imposing breadth but found fault with one or another feature of the Core Program as presented. (SCAPA cannot forbear to express its dismay at the widespread alarm in the broader community at the thought of any obligation to study any form of mathematics; can we, in this quantitative culture, really claim to be preparing students for successful lives if we allow them to be shielded from brushing up against any form of quantitative analysis?)
The third version, shorn of the Core Program, achieved wide support in the consultation, but there were still some urgent voices, particularly from the Faculty of Science, expressing concern about some aspects of the proposal, principally the need to allow space for some highly specialized programs in which virtually all the courses after first year lie in the discipline of the degree.
SCAPA fine-tuned that third version to answer most of the concerns that were expressed, and it was that structure that Senate approved on March 23, 2001.
The New Structure:
A. The Modules
There will be four possible modules of study in any discipline:
Honors Specialization (9 or more courses)
Specialization (9 or more courses)
Major (6-7 courses)
Minor (4-5 courses)
B. The Degrees
These modules will be combinable into three different degrees, as follows:
The Honors Bachelor's Degree
15 courses after first year, as follows:
Honors Specialization (9 or more) + Major/Minor/Optional courses, or
Major (6-7) + Major (6-7) + Optional courses (3-1)
The Bachelor's Degree
15 courses after first year, as follows:
Specialization (9 or more) + Major/Minor/Optional courses,
Major (6-7) + Major (6-7) + Optional courses (3-1), or
Major (6-7) + Minors/Optional courses
The Three-Year Bachelor's Degree
10 courses after first year, as follows:
Major (6-7) + Minor/Optional courses, or
Minor (4) + Minor (4) + Optional courses (2)
C. Notes on the Modules:
(a) Academic units may offer whatever modules they wish. Thus a given department, History for example, might offer just four: History Honors Specialization, History Specialization, History Major, History Minor. Or it might offer two different Major modules - World History Major and Canadian History Major, say, or it might elect to offer only an Honors Specialization module. The Department of Chemistry might choose to offer only an Honors Specialization and a Minor. The Ivey School will presumably offer only the Honors Specialization. And so forth.
(b) The modules are highly permissive. Except for the number of courses in each, and the requirement that they be structured programs of study, academic units will be entirely free to stipulate such matters as course sequences, course levels, module-specific course sections, and the like. In particular, academic units will be free to structure the modules cumulatively, or not: that is, they might make the courses for the Minor a subset of the courses for the Major, which will in turn be a subset of the courses for the Specialization - or not. And it remains perfectly possible for a unit to specify, as part of one of its modules, courses offered by another unit. Thus FIMS could include in its Honors Specialization module, for example, courses offered by the Department of Computer Science.
(c) Interdepartmental or interfaculty modules are invited. In particular a pair of departments wishing to offer a program which integrates two disciplines (as opposed to offering them side-by-side as in the double Major) might wish to use the device of the Specialization or Honors Specialization to do this; the number of courses involved might be easily be as high as 13 or 14. Psychology and Physiology, for example, might wish to devise such an integrated program.
(d) SCAPA might wish at a later date to introduce, as a Major, a program in Core Studies. This module will reproduce the essence of the Core Program which was such a noted feature of the second iteration of this proposal; it will not, however, of course, be obligatory
(e) The difference between the Honors Specialization and the Specialization modules will be a matter of the level and nature of the courses required. Computer Science, for example, has a four-year program which involves as many courses as its Honors program, but which does not require as much study of advanced mathematics. Again, the four-year BACS and BHSc programs will be Specialization modules.
(f) The Major module is essentially equivalent, in number of courses, to the present Honors requirements when they figure in Combined Honors programs. The intention of this structure is that students will be entirely free to combine any Major module with any other, subject, of course, to the not insignificant constraints of the timetable.
(g) The Minor module will be expected to be a structured program of study.
D. Notes on the Degrees
(a) The intention is that the Bachelor's Degree - which has hitherto, unhappily, often been called the 'four-year non-honors degree' - should become the standard degree at Western. The Honors Degree is a more demanding qualification than the standard degree; the Three-Year Degree is a less demanding qualification.
(b) Some members of the University community have expressed the hope that this reform of the program might see the simple elimination of three-year degrees. Others have said that, whatever we do, the 3-year degree is likely to disappear when the Ontario secondary-school program really becomes a four-year program. Three-year degrees, however, seem to have a useful place in some disciplines as a preparation for professional schools. And the examples of Manitoba, of Saskatchewan and of Nova Scotia suggest that there is no essential incompatibility between a four-year high-school program and a three-year degree. Moreover the probable enrolment pressures of the Double Cohort years may lead us to be grateful for a 3-year degree option. The SCAPA has therefore preferred to maintain a three-year degree at Western.
(c) Discussion in the University has shown a strong general desire to keep Honors programs intact. These programs are a distinctive feature of Western because they typically involve a much higher degree of concentration in a discipline than is the case in Honors programs at other universities in Canada. (For example, an Honors degree at the University of Toronto is simply a four-year degree; until this year it could be composed of three minors!) The Honors Specialization module allows this traditional type of study at Western to be preserved.
(d) The present system of the required standard of performance for Honors degrees will be maintained. A student in an Honors Specialization module who fails to achieve the required standard of performance will graduate with a Bachelor's Degree rather than an Honors Bachelor's Degree
(e) The difference between the Honors Bachelor's Degree with two Majors and the Bachelor's Degree with two Majors will lie in the standard of performance achieved. A department may however designate certain sections of a course as intended for students pursuing Honors degrees.
(f) Students who graduate with a Three-Year Bachelor's Degree may enrol for a fourth year of study to upgrade their qualification.
(g) This will be the default matrix for the bachelor's degree at Western. It is understood that some bachelor's programs - e.g. the professional bachelor's programs such as BMus, BFA, BESc - might need to bend the matrix.
The Provost will consult with the Deans and bring forward a plan for its implementation, including a statement of resources to be devoted to the transition.
In the transition period SCAPA will form a task force to work with department representatives to adapt their programs to this structure. It is understood that, even though this structure has been very carefully devised, with much consultation, it may have to be altered in places as it encounters the complex realities of implementation.
The expected implementation date is September 2004.
Senate, at its meeting of March 23, 2001, approved the following:
The first-entry undergraduate enrolment objective for 2001-2002 will be set at 4,350 students and that the approximate program-specific objectives be as described in Annex 2.
The Provost is authorized to alter this enrolment target, following consultation and approval from the Senate Subcommittee on Enrolment Planning and Policy [SUEPP], as might be appropriate given the particulars of a government funding announcement.
Entrance requirements will be set by the Provost to achieve these objectives as a function of final admission numbers, qualifications of applicants, and estimates of the rate of offer confirmations in each program.
No program-specific entrance requirement be set below 77% except where performance is a major element of the selection process. Confirmed admission to any program will be contingent upon a final average of no less than 73%.
Given the experience of recent years and current application figures, there is a real possibility that minimum entrance requirements in most programs will be higher than 77% in 2001-2002.
The timing of the new application and offer process for OAC students (implemented in 1999-00) is such that early offers are made in March / April when less information is available about applicants than was the case prior to 1999-00.
The same framework will be applied to making early offers to OAC students in March / April, 2001, as was the case in the last year. Grade value (italics) will be set as a function of final information regarding applicant qualifications in each program.
Offer made if:
The details of this matrix may vary slightly from program to program (e.g. Music where auditions are an essential part of the admissions process).
Every effort will be made to maintain single minimum standard of admission in Arts, Social Science (including ACS), Science, Information and Media Studies, Kinesiology, and Health Sciences. A higher standard may be necessary in Nursing to meet enrolment targets. The goal will be to set the same standard for Engineering Science as for Science, but given the special funding opportunities of the ATOP program, consideration will be given to maintaining the minimum entrance requirement at 77% even if other programs have a marginally higher entrance requirement in 2001-2002.
As indicated in the Senate resolutions of past years, consideration may be given in the admissions process to factors such as performance in program-relevant courses (e.g., mathematics and sciences in Science and Engineering Science), relevant extra curricular activities, and the academic record of the secondary school.
As was the case in 1999 and 2000, the period between the availability of initial application information (still not including final year, winter semester applicant grades) and the offer date does not permit an admissions proposal that includes detailed program-specific admissions criteria to be brought to Senate for consideration before initial offers were made.
An additional round of offers will be made in May 2001. Criteria used for those offers will be set as a function of additional information on applicant qualifications and program-specific patterns of acceptance of early offers, but will observe the general entrance requirements established in this recommendation.
The Senate also approved entrance requirements and processes for each of the Affiliated Colleges be approved for 2001-2002. These vary from college to college with the objective of enrolment targets set by each college. First year enrolment targets at the colleges are: Brescia College, 250; Huron University College, 310-320; and King's College, 750-800.
See Annex 3.
See Annex 4.
The 2000-2001 Winners of The Edward G. Pleva Award for Excellence in Teaching are:
Laurence de Looze, Department of Modern Languages and Literatures, Faculty of Arts
James A. Erskine, Richard Ivey School of Business
Allan J. Gedalof, Department of English, Faculty of Arts
Rocco Gerace, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry
Spring Convocation 2003 will be held Tuesday, June 3, through Friday, June 6, and
Fall Convocation 2003 will be held Thursday, October 23, and Friday, October 24.
See Annex 5.
The total budget for the Academic Development Fund in 2001-2002 is $1 million. Of this, $12,700 is required to fund the second year of projects given multi-year funding in the 2000-2001 competition. The sum available for allocation in 2001 is $986,958, taking into account $79,658 reverted to the ADF budget from unused portions of previous awards, the previous years' commitment of $12,700 and the allocation of $80,000 to support the Small Grants Competition for 2001.
This year SUPAD reviewed 29 applications for funding under the ADF, a decrease over the previous year when 54 applications were received. Of the 29 applications, 23 were recommended for funding. The total amount requested by these 29 applicants was $1,670,288; of this, $1,518,288 was requested for 2001-2002.
As in previous years, SUPAD divided into three subgroups in order to facilitate the detailed review and preliminary ranking of the applications. The subgroups and the number of applications within each are
Received Recommended Recommended
|Physical and Mathematical Sciences and Engineering||12||9||$407,697|
|Social Sciences, Arts and Humanities||4||3||$98,019|
Reports from a total of 39 arm's-length external referees contributed to the assessment of the projects this year.
Applications involving computers were referred to the Senate Committee on Information Technology and Services (SCITS) for technical assessment.
SUPAD met twice as a whole to evaluate the applications and related materials. Separate meetings of subgroups did preliminary evaluations.
The total amount of the awards recommended for 2001-2002 is $976,046, excluding recommendations for multi- year projects in the Social Sciences, Arts and Humanities disciplines amounting to $61,246 for 2002-2003 and $63,854 for 2003-2004. Details are provided on the attached table (Annex 6).
In a departure from previous years' practice, SCUP accepted a proposal from SUPAD that up to $50,000 of funds expected to revert to the ADF budget be allocated at the Spring 2001 Small Grants Competition. This is a one-time request in response to a greater demand and lower success rate in the Small Grants Competition. SUPAD does not expect that the allocation of an additional $50,000 will distort the success rate for the Spring 2001 Small Grants competition.
Senate approved the introduction of the following new programs:
Faculty of Engineering Science
C. Briens, Associate Dean (Graduate Studies), January 1, 2001 - June 30, 2005
Faculty of Health Sciences
J.D. Cooke, Acting Director, School of Communication Sciences and Disorders, January 1 - June 30, 2001
Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry
A.W. Gelb, Acting Chair, Department of Anaesthesia, February 1, 2001 through June 30, 2001
R.N. Rankin, Acting Chair, Dept. of Diagnostic Radiology & Nuclear Med., July 1, 2001 - June 30, 2002
E. Persad, Acting Chair, Department of Psychiatry, November 1, 2000 through June 30, 2001
M.A. Cook, Acting Chair, Department of Pharmacology & Toxicology, January 1- December 31, 2001
Huron University College
Ramona Lumpkin, Principal, July 1, 2001
Reverend Canon Dr. John H. Chapman, Dean of Theology
Lorna Bowman, Academic Dean, July 1, 2001
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE UNIVERSITY COUNCIL ON ANIMAL CARE (U C A C)
Three meetings of Council were held in 2000, on January 20th, June 13th and November 2nd .
Items discussed at these meetings included, but were not limited to, the following issues:
Attached as Appendix 1 is an Annual Report prepared by Animal Care and Veterinary Services. It was received for information by the University Council on Animal Care at its March 8th, 2001, meeting and further details items considered by Council.
William Roberts, Chair.