The meeting was held at 1:00 p.m. in Room 40 of the Richard Ivey School of Business.
SENATORS: 74
J. Adams, R. Archibald, P. Barker, K. Barrowcliffe, A. Belcastro, I. Black, W.A. Bridger, P. Cain, C. Callaghan, M. Cheesman, M. Cole, R.P. Coulter, M. Cousineau, P. Davenport, P. Deane, C. Down, D. Fairbairn, A. Garcia, B. Garcia, T. Garrard, W. Gibson, E.E. Gillese, J.M. Good, L. Griffin, R. Harris, R. Hawkins, T. Hessel, K. Howlett, N. Huner, C.-Y. Kang, A. Katz, G. Killan, D. Kuntz, T.C.Y. Lo, J. MacKinnon, L. Mansinha, M. Mathur, G. McGahey, D. McLachlin, J. McKay, R.Y. McMurtry, M. McNay, K. McQuillan, P.P. Mercer, J. Moorhead, G. Moran, D. Muñoz, P. Neary, J. Orange, A. Pearson, H. Polatajko, A. Prabhakar, S. Provost, D. Rosner, E. Singer, B. Singh, J. Snyder, D. Spencer, J.L. Stokes, S. Tan, L. Tapp, C. Thomson, J. Thorp, R. Toft, K. Tribe, J.K. Van Fleet, A. Weedon, C. Weldon, R. White, L. Whittaker, E. Wood, A. Wylie, R. Young, M. Zamir
Observers: I. Armour, R. Chelladurai, D. Jameson, T. Kennedy, R. Tiffin, A. Varpalotai
By Invitation: L. Geddie, S. Singh
Research literature indicates that student evaluation of teaching provides reliable and valid information on teaching effectiveness, and leads to improvement in the quality of teaching. Western students appear to be generally satisfied with the new teaching evaluation form, although they are concerned that insufficient emphasis is placed on student evaluation of teaching in faculty personnel decisions and in teaching improvement.
Despite some reservations, UWO faculty members appear to be generally satisfied with the new teaching evaluation form. Faculty are, however, concerned about abusive written comments from students and they want earlier feedback of evaluation results and comparative norms to aid interpretation of student evaluations.
Statistical analyses indicate that the new teaching evaluation form shows reliability and validity data similar to that reported in the research literature.
Professor B. Garcia voiced concern about the issue of faculty intimidation caused by abusive comments by students. Professor Murray stated that the only way to address this issue would be to look at the comments as they appear on the evaluation form. This was not done, however, for reasons of confidentiality. Professor Murray agreed that PACTL should find a way to conduct such an analysis. As part of the task of educating students about student evaluation of teaching, faculty should emphasize that teaching is important to them and that students should avoid abusive, obscene comments that do not belong in a teaching evaluation form.
Professor Murray confirmed that none of the data collected in the review was done in graduate courses since the evaluation form is intended for undergraduate courses.
Professor Wood questioned the cost and value of having comments transcribed rather than photocopied, noting that the number of typographical errors made the anecdotal comments inappropriate for teaching dossiers. Dr. Moran explained that photocopying would have been equally expensive since only one set of comments contained on the page were intended to be seen by the instructors. Photocopying would have entailed covering portions of the page. He suggested that typographical errors were the result of transcribers having difficulty reading the students' handwriting.
Dr. Mercer advised Senate that in recent months it has become apparent that there are at least uncertainties, if not disagreements, about the way the policy on accommodation of students with disabilities should be applied. To address questions about application of the policy, a booklet has been prepared, based on submissions by some thirty-five faculty members, as well as examples drawn from the experience of dealing with disabilities in Ontario at large under the Human Rights Code. The booklet is in final draft and will be circulated soon. The document will clarify a number of points about how the policy is to play out.
As to the referral of questions from the OSSD to the Vice-President (Administration) & General Counsel, Dr. Mercer explained that he has asked that the Director keep him informed of any difficulties she experiences in the implementation of the policy and of questions raised by users of the policy.
Senate was advised that the Operations/Agenda Committee approved, on behalf of Senate, the following list of candidates who received the Master of Divinity degree at the 1998 Spring Convocation at Huron College held on April 30, 1998.
Daniel Dean Brereton *
Megan Tomya Collings-Moore *
Gregory Scott Jenkins *
Susan Mary McCullough *
Paul David Millward*
Tanya Marie Phibbs*
* = graduated "with distinction"
S.98-125b Master of Theological Studies
Senate was advised that the Operations/Agenda Committee approved, on behalf of Senate, the following list of candidates who received the Master of Theological Studies degree at the 1998 Spring Convocation at Huron College held on April 30, 1998.
Richard George Corneil *
Janice Amy Graham
Clairanne Margaret Harrison
Constance Lynn Hiscock
* = graduated "with distinction"
On behalf of SCAPA, it was moved by J. Thorp, seconded by N. Huner,
That the listing of areas available to students in the first-year program include a new category -- "Multidisciplinary" -- to allow inclusion of first-year courses in new programs that do not fit into the core faculty categories, as shown in Exhibit III, Appendix 1.
CARRIED
It was moved by J. Thorp, seconded by N. Huner,
That effective September 1, 1998, the requirements for three-year degrees be integrated and revised to read as shown below:
CALENDAR COPY
GRADUATION REQUIREMENTS FOR THREE-YEAR DEGREES
The requirement for graduation is completion of a program of fifteen courses, subject to the following general conditions and to conditions set by each Faculty, department or program:
General Requirements
a) Five full courses (or equivalent) numbered 001-099 must be successfully completed. The five courses must include at least four different subjects and no more than two courses may be taken in one subject. No more than four courses can be selected from a single Faculty.
Note: In selecting courses outside their home faculty, students should be aware of the breadth requirements of their intended degree program.
b) Satisfactory completion of one or more areas of concentration is a graduation requirement. The senior courses specified for the area or areas of concentration must be completed with an average of at least 60% and the majority of senior courses specified for the area of concentration must be completed through The University of Western Ontario or one of its affiliated colleges.
c) At least eight senior courses (numbered 100-499) must be completed satisfactorily.
d) A mark of 50% or higher must be achieved in the courses counted for graduation.
e) An overall average of at least 60% must be achieved in the courses counted for graduation.
f) An average of 60% must be achieved in the senior courses specified for the area of concentration.
g) Not more than five courses may be taken at another university on a Letter of Permission. A minimum of ten courses, at least five of which must be senior, must be completed at this university or one of the affiliated colleges.
h) Students admitted with advanced standing are required to complete a minimum of five senior courses offered by the university or one of the affiliated colleges in the 15-course program.
BSc Requirements
The general requirements listed above for the Three-Year Degree must be met, in addition to the following conditions:
a) At least ten courses from the offerings of the Faculty of Science must be included in the program, with the sole exception of the 3-year BSc Physiology and Psychology program.
b) Among the five required courses numbered 001-099, at least one course must be included from the Faculty of Arts or from the Faculty of Social Science (or the equivalent departments in the affiliated colleges), or an approved alternate must be selected.
BA Requirements
The general requirements listed above for the Three-Year Degree must be met, in addition to the following conditions:
a) Satisfactory completion of at least two designated essay courses, at least one of which must be numbered 100 or higher. For students in the Faculties of Arts, Health Sciences, Information and Media Studies, and Social Science, the senior essay course must be taken from the student's area of concentration. Students who declared an area of concentration before May 1, 1995, and who graduate by September 2004, must complete one senior essay course; however, it is not a requirement that it be taken in their area of concentration. These two essay courses must be completed through The University of Western Ontario or through one of its affiliated colleges. (Current students with ten or more courses completed prior to September 1984, or students admitted with advanced credit for ten courses, are required to complete only one senior essay course at Western.) There is no retroactive essay course credit for courses completed prior to September 1984.
b) Inclusion among the required five courses numbered 001-099 of at least one course from each of the Faculties of Arts, Science and Social Science (or the equivalent department in the affiliated colleges) or an approved alternate.
c) Inclusion of no more than eight courses in one single subject among the 15 courses of the program.
CARRIED
That effective May 1, 1998, the Faculty of Information and Media Studies introduce combined honors programs with the following departments or programs: Anthropology, Comparative Literature and Civilization, Economics, English, Film, French, History, German, International and Comparative Studies, Philosophy, Political Science, Russian, Sociology, Spanish, Visual Arts, and Women's Studies.
CALENDAR COPY: IMS SECTION OF THE CALENDAR
MIT Combined Honors Programs
Combinations:
Anthropology, Comparative Literature and Civilization, Economics, English, Film, French, History, German,
International and Comparative Studies, Philosophy, Political Science, Russian, Sociology, Spanish, Visual
Arts, and Women's Studies.
Admission Requirements:
Entrance to the second and senior years of the Combined Honors program is limited. Students must be
accepted by both participating programs. A minimum requirement for admission to the MIT portion of a
combined honors program is an overall average of 75 percent with no grade lower than 65 percent, and a
minimum of 70 percent in the required half-courses taken in first-year. Attainment of the minimum
requirements does not guarantee admission. Students will be evaluated for admission based upon their
academic standing.
Progression Requirements:
Students must meet the general regulations pertaining to progression requirements for combined honors
programs.
Program Requirements:
The Combined Honors programs with Media, Information and Technoculture require six courses in MIT in
addition to the number of courses specified for combined honors by the other participating program - usually
six honors courses. Additional optional courses - usually three - to make up the fifteen required senior courses
must be taken with the approval of the participating programs. For the Combined Honors program with
Computer Science, refer to the specific requirements for that program.
First year:
Five courses from 001-099, including Computer Science 031a/b, MIT 025a/b and MIT 026a/b. MIT 024a/b
is recommended but not required. If desired, students in first-year can take CS031a/b and either MIT 025a/b
or 026a/b, with the remaining course then taken in Year 2.
Note: Scholar's Elective students must take all of MIT 025a/b, 026a/b and CS 031a/b in their first year.
Second, Third and Fourth Years:
Six senior MIT courses or full-course equivalents are required for the MIT portion of the Combined Honors.
Of these, 3.5 are required, as specified below, and the remaining 2.5 must be chosen from the lists of
additional courses below, some of which are cross-listed with other departments.
Required:
Either MIT 025a/b or 026a/b, if not taken in Year 1.
MIT 209F/G or 244 F/G, 234F/G or 235 F/G, 243F/G, 245F/G, 246F/G, 247F/G, and 248F/G.
At least 1 full course or full-course equivalent from the following not previously taken:
MIT 207F/G, 209F/G, 234F/G, 235F/G, 242F/G, 243F/G, 244F/G, 245F/G, 246F/G, 247F/G,
248F/G, 250F/G, 251a/b, 255F/G, 320F/G, 330F/G, 332F/G, 333F/G, 336F/G, 344E, 345F/G, 346F/G,
444E.
The remainder of the six senior MIT courses may be chosen from (depending upon course prerequisites and
availability):
Admin. Studies 280F/G, 355F/G, 356F/G
English 200, 256G
Film 270F/G
*Geography 242a/b, 280a/b, 332a/b, 342a/b, 359F/G, 379a/b, 381a/b, 383a/b
History 404E (Huron), 411E
Political Science 201F, 222E (Huron), 246E
*Psychology 234a/b, 235a/b, 261F/G, 270F/G, 373F/G, 386a/b, 390a/b
Sociology 461F/G, 469F/G
Visual Arts 231, 331.
*Note: For selection of appropriate Geography and Psychology courses, students should consult with MIT
academic counselling.
CALENDAR COPY: COMBINED HONORS SECTION OF THE CALENDAR [pp. 52-55]
First year:
Computer Science 031a/b, MIT 025a/b and MIT 026a/b. If desired, students in first-year can take CS
031a/b and either MIT 025a/b or 026a/b, with the remaining course then taken in Year 2.
Second, Third and Fourth Years:
Required:
Either MIT 025a/b or 026a/b, if not taken in Year 1.
MIT 209F/G or 244 F/G, 234F/G or 235 F/G, 243F/G, 245F/G, 246F/G, 247F/G, and 248F/G.
At least 1 full course or full-course equivalent from the following not previously taken:
MIT 207F/G, 209F/G, 234F/G, 235F/G, 242F/G, 243F/G, 244F/G, 245F/G, 246F/G, 247F/G,
248F/G, 250F/G, 251a/b, 255F/G, 320F/G, 330F/G, 332F/G, 333F/G, 336F/G, 344E, 345F/G, 346F/G,
444E.
The remainder of the six senior MIT courses may be chosen from cross-listed courses as indicated within the
Faculty of Information and Media Studies section.
CARRIED
That effective September 1, 1998, a Bachelor of Arts in Honors Media, Information and Technoculture be introduced in the Faculty of Information and Media Studies.
CALENDAR COPY
Bachelor of Arts in Honors Media, Information and Technoculture
Admission Requirements:
Entrance to the second and senior years of the Honors program is limited. A minimum requirement for
admission to the MIT honors program is an overall average of 75 percent with no grade lower than 65
percent, and a minimum of 70 percent in the required first-year half-courses. Attainment of the minimum
requirements does not guarantee admission. Students will be evaluated for admission based upon their
academic standing.
Progression Requirements:
Students must meet the general regulations pertaining to progression requirements for honors programs.
Program Requirements:
The Honors MIT program consists of twenty full courses or full-course equivalents. After the first year, the
program requires nine senior MIT full courses or full-course equivalents, as outlined below, and six
optional full courses or equivalent. At least four of the six optional courses must be at the 200-level or
higher.
First Year:
Five courses from 001-099, including Computer Science 031a/b, MIT 025a/b and MIT 026a/b. MIT 024a/b
is recommended but not required. If desired, students in first-year can take CS 031a/b and either MIT 025a/b
or 026a/b, with the remaining course then taken in Year 2.
Note: Scholar's Elective students must take all of MIT 025a/b, 026a/b and CS 031a/b in their first year.
Second Year:
Either MIT 025a/b or 026a/b, if not taken in Year 1.
MIT 209F/G or 244 F/G, 234F/G or 235 F/G, 243F/G, 245F/G, 246F/G, 247F/G, and 248F/G.
At least one optional course.
Third and Fourth Years:
At least 2 MIT full courses or full-course equivalents from the following not previously taken:
MIT 207F/G, 209F/G, 234F/G, 235F/G, 242F/G, 243F/G, 244F/G, 245F/G, 246F/G, 247F/G,
248F/G, 250F/G, 251a/b, 255F/G, 320F/G, 330F/G, 332F/G, 333F/G, 336F/G, 344E, 345F/G, 346F/G,
444E.
Up to 3.5 MIT cross-listed full courses or full-course equivalents from the following (dependent upon course
availability and prerequisites):
Admin. Studies 280F/G, 355F/G, 356F/G
English 200, 256G
Film 270F/G
*Geography 242a/b, 280a/b, 332a/b, 342a/b, 359F/G, 379a/b, 381a/b, 383a/b
History 404E (Huron), 411E
Political Science 201F, 222E (Huron), 246E
*Psychology 234a/b, 235a/b, 261F/G, 270F/G, 373F/G, 386a/b, 390a/b
Sociology 461F/G, 469F/G
Visual Arts 231, 331.
At least 4.5 optional full courses or full-course equivalents.
*Note: For selection of appropriate Geography and Psychology courses, students should consult with MIT
academic counselling.
CARRIED
Senate was informed that SCAPA has approved on behalf of the Senate the terms of reference for the following new scholarships, bursaries and awards. These will be recommended to the Board of Governors through the Vice-Chancellor:
Eve Harp and Judith Wiley Classical Studies Travel Award (Faculty of Arts [Classical Studies])
Dr. Gordon Nikiforuk Bursary (Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry [Dentistry])
S.98-134a On behalf of the Senate Committee on University Planning, it was moved by G. Moran, seconded by J. Thorp,
That the Senate approve and recommend to the Board of Governors, through the Vice-Chancellor, the 1998-99 University Budget including the changes described in Exhibit IV, Appendix 1 and revised tables 10a and 10b.
Overview
Professor S. Singh, Chair of SCUP, noted that the budget is being presented to Senate and the Board one
month later than is usually the case because the Ontario government did not provide final details about
deregulated programs until May 6. The May 7 memorandum from the Provost and the Vice-President
(Administration) is an integral part of the budget documentation because it makes adjustments to the budget
model that are necessary as a result of the government's announcement.
Professor Singh provided a comprehensive overview of the 1998-99 operating and capital budget, aided by overhead slides (copies of which are appended as Appendix 1 to these Minutes). He noted that the twin foci of the 1998-99 budget are the need to improve the quality of education and the need to expand in areas of high demand. Funding cutbacks have translated into significant reductions in resources. As an example, there has been a 17% reduction in full-time employees since 1992-93. Tuition revenue is the major source for additional revenue to enhance the quality of education and expand in some areas. Enhancing the quality of education will involve the following investments:
Enrolment Contingent Funding (ECF) to be increased by $650,000 to $2.2 million to provide
increased course availability and new programs
Faculty renewal - Special Faculty Renewal Initiative (SFRI) of $600,000
New Writing Program
Instructional Technology Initiatives - $750,000 from the Provost's Academic Support Fund (PASF)
Continued investment in Engineering Science
Increased library acquisitions budget (5%)
In the absence of projected tuition revenue, as set out in the budget, there would be larger budget cuts to
Faculties which would result in:
Reduction in the quality of Western's programs
Reduced or no faculty renewal
Reduction in course offerings
Inability to respond to student demand for new programs and courses
Inability to respond to special opportunities, such as the Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI) and
Ontario Research Development Challenge Fund (ORDCF) initiatives where Western must provide matching
funds.
Reduction in book purchases and library services
Reduction in classroom improvements
Reduction in recruitment initiatives
Reduced support for research
Reduced ITS support (Y2K problem, PeopleSoft implementation, and instructional technology)
Reduction in support services (fund raising, physical plant, etc.)
There are three revenue sources:
Government grants: Although it was announced that there would be no change to the universities'
grant for 1998-99, there will be a net reduction in government funds as a result of a reduction in pay equity
grants, the phase-out of the international student fee pool, and a reduction in government-funded bursaries.
The reduction in the case of Western will be $830,000
Tuition: It is proposed that there by an average 10% increase in the regulated undergraduate
programs, and differential fees in some of the deregulated programs. Together, these will provide regular
tuition revenue, up by 11.1% or $8 million.
Other sources: These include investment income and revenue from the full-cost recovery MBA
program.
Faculties will experience a budget reduction of 1.9% on average, but considering reinfusion of funds through
the ECF and SFRI, the net reduction in Faculty budgets will be 0.9%. Overall student support (scholarships
and bursaries) will be increased by 23.7% or $3 million over last year.
Student Financial Aid
Dr. Harris, Vice-Provost & Registrar, outlined features of the 1998-99 budget relating to student aid. The
University wants to ensure that students are not denied access to a university education as a result of tuition
increases. The Ministry of Education and Training requires that 30% of all new tuition revenue be set aside
for student aid. This policy, along with the Ontario Student Opportunity Trust Fund (OSOTF) program,
results in a dramatic increase in the amount of money available within universities for distribution to students.
At Western, funds available for bursaries and work/study have grown from less than $1 million in 1995-96 to
over $6 million. Additional funds are available through endowments created through the OSOTF and private
gifts. In 1998-99, there will be approximately $660,000 in income from investments that will be available
for distribution to students. Beyond the student aid and awards that the University provides, students also
have access to hundreds of part-time and summer jobs on campus; every year more than $8 million in wages
is paid to students.
Dr. Harris outlined the goals of Western's undergraduate student financial aid programs: to ensure accessibility; to make allocations based on need; to respond as quickly as possible; and to be accountable for the way the funds are distributed. Support can come from a variety of sources which include the student's own personal resources and a mix of grants, Ontario Student Assistance Plan (OSAP), bank loans, scholarships, awards, bursaries, work/study and other employment opportunities. Financial Aid Services assists each student to obtain sufficient sources of support from these various sources. Normally students are expected to rely first on OSAP and other government programs before looking to the university for financial support. However, need that is not met by OSAP is met by university-administered funds for first degree programs, and in the case of some second-entry programs, with a mixture of awards, scholarships, bursaries, employment and bank loans at preferred interest rates. In the forthcoming year, Financial Aid Services will work closely with Faculties, particularly with those Faculties whose programs will have significant tuition increases, to develop specific programs and plans for student assistance that will make the most sense, given the particular needs of the students in a particular program. The key components of the 1998-99 financial aid plan include continued emphasis on work/study, an Accessibility Fund for full-time and part-time students, continuing bursaries, and developing preferred-interest loan agreements with banks. As well, in compliance with new MET regulations, the University will be developing income contingent loan repayment plans for the second-entry, high tuition programs.
Differential Fees
Dr. Moran stressed that revenues derived from tuition fees are not discretionary "extra funds": they are badly
needed for basic operations. In cases where there will be significant tuition increases -- Honors Business
Administration (HBA), Dentistry, and Medicine -- the funds will be used for substantial expansion and
reinvestment in those programs. Students who are already in these programs will be "grandparented" and will
not experience more than 20% increase.
Two primary considerations when identifying programs where fees might be raised substantially are: the cost of delivering the programs and the ability of graduates from those programs to pay back loans. Dr. Moran showed an overhead slide comparing the costs of delivering programs in Social Science and Dentistry. These costs are based on direct costs in terms of the operating budget assigned to a Faculty, and on indirect costs for services such as information technology services, libraries, physical plant, and the like. What is not included is the cost of teaching students in other Faculties. The cost of educating a student in Dentistry is five times the cost of educating a student in Social Sciences. On the other hand, even with a tuition fee which is double that of a program in Social Science, tuition fees paid by a student in Dentistry cover only about 20% of the cost of that education. Social Science students are paying nearly 52% of the cost of their education. This is one of the factors leading to the conclusion that it is only fair to charge students in such programs as Dentistry, Medicine and Business tuition fees that reflect the cost of delivering those programs. However, the decision to charge substantially higher tuition is not driven only by the cost of delivering a program. Significant fee increases are not recommended for other high-cost programs such as Music, Journalism, and Library and Information Science, principally because the employment and earnings expectations of graduates of those programs are low compared to graduates of Business, Medicine, and Dentistry.
It is not believed that raising significantly the fees in Business, Medicine and Dentistry will affect accessibility to those programs. In 1996-97, the fees in Dentistry were raised by 160%, from about $3000 to $8000, and a preferential loan program was arranged with a bank for those students who needed to borrow. Since then, applications to the program have been monitored closely. Application numbers have been up, applicants have continued to be of high quality, and there has been no noticeable change in the socio-economic status or the diversity of students entering the program. In Dentistry, 45 of 200 students have availed themselves of bank loans which, on average are $10,000.
A copy of the overheads presented by Dr. Moran appear in Appendix 2 to these minutes.
Discussion and Debate
The Chair repeated the main motion and opened the floor for debate.
S.98-134b Tuition for the Honors Business Administration Program
Dean Tapp stated that although he could live with higher tuition in the HBA program, he would propose a transition period. It was therefore moved by L. Tapp, seconded by E. Gillese,
That (Revised Table 10a, line 14, of the budget be amended by changing) the first year tuition fee for the HBA in 1998-99 be $5,700 and that the fee for 1999-2000 be $8,000.
Ms. Weldon asked what the impact of the amendment would be on projected revenues. Dean Tapp acknowledged this would constitute a loss of revenue, but that time is needed to adjust the market. Dr. Davenport stated that the difference between an $8,000 fee and a $5,700 fee in 1998-99 for the 150 students entering the HBA program would be a loss of $345,000. He stated that in proposing the increased fee, the administration has tried to balance the needs of students in the program against the needs to expand the program to accommodate the large number of qualified students who aspire to get into the program.
Mr. Singer acknowledged the need to expand the HBA program, but objected to the suggestion that students entering the program now should bear the cost of expanding the program two years in the future. In his view, it is the responsibility of the Business School to acquire funds to expand, rather than building the program on profits from tuition collected from students entering the program now. Dr. Davenport observed that a key issue is relationship between cost and expenditure in the HBA program. The cost of delivering the HBA program is approximately $16,000 per student, as compared to the proposed tuition fee of $8,000, so there is no question of a 'profit'.
Dr. Moran spoke against the amendment. He confirmed that there is a need for the increased tuition income to support the HBA program now. On a broader scope, he reminded Senators that the University urgently requires increased income; there is a systemic deficit in the budget of approximately $4 million. None of the tuition increases represent "extra money", but rather it is needed to sustain the University and its basic operations.
Professor Wood asked how much flexibility there is in the budget. Although $345,000 is a large number, as a percentage of the overall budget, it is not large. He asked where the projected revenue would come from, should the amendment be passed. Dr. Davenport said that would depend on the budget that is ultimately passed by the Board of Governors. One option would be to reduce the targeted balance in the Operating Reserve rather than reduce unit budgets. The Operating Reserve balance has already been reduced from what was originally projected, as a result of the province's narrow definition of deregulated programs.
Professor Archibald stated that the issue of higher tuition fees for HBA students is not the real issue. Rather, it is fairness to 146 students currently enrolled in second year at Western who will be entering the HBA program in the fall. At issue is the 'grandparenting' of fees. In his view, the students entering the program in the fall of 1998-99, and particularly those in the Academic Excellence Program, should be 'grandparented' and that the increase should not exceed 20% over 1997-98 fees. He argued that it is unfair to thrust the burden of ten years of underfunding from the province on the students entering the HBA program now. Moreover, the negative impact to the University of imposing the $8,000 fee on entering students in 1998-99 far exceeds the $345,000 in additional tuition revenue.
Mr. Black asked, if the amendment does not pass, whether the University can guarantee that no student will be denied financial aid, irrespective of the amount needed. Dr. Harris stated that every student who approaches Financial Aid Services will have the opportunity to apply for financial aid and that the students who need the money the most will receive it.
Dr. Harris spoke of the large number of students who come to Western with the sole ambition of entering the HBA program. However, given the limited size of the program, hundreds of qualified students are denied access. These students think they have been misled in terms of access to the program.
Ms. Howlett supported the amendment on the grounds that students entering the program in 1998-99 have been given such short notice of the significant increase over 1997-98 tuition rates.
S.98-134c It was moved by J. Adams, seconded by D. McLachlin,
That the amendment to the main motion be amended by changing $5,700 to $4,570 for 1998-99 and by changing $8,000 to $5,700 in 1999-2000, so that the amendment would read: "That (Revised Table 10a, line 14, of the budget be amended by changing) the first year tuition fee for the HBA in 1998-99 be $4,570 and that the fee for 1999-2000 be $5,700."
Mr. Adams explained that this would effectively 'grandparent' the tuition fees for students entering the program in 1998-99.
In response to an earlier question about financial aid, Dr. Davenport emphasized that the government requires that the University provide financial aid to students who require it to pay the deregulated fee. This requirement can be supported by substantial funds that are available now, as detailed by Dr. Harris earlier in the meeting. It is expected that some of the students facing higher fees will depend on financial aid from the University. Beyond that, the government requires that the University develop a program for income contingent loan repayment for students who graduate from deregulated programs. All of this supports the objective of not denying access to students on the basis of financial resources.
Dr. Moran opposed the amendment to the amendment. He spoke about the broad issue of fairness. Severe funding cutbacks have hurt students most. With the reduction in faculty numbers, class sizes have increased and access to professors has decreased. This is especially acute in the arts and social sciences, where students pay approximately 50% of the cost of their education. Those students would gladly trade places with HBA students on the basis of the experience in the HBA program with its smaller classes and high quality facilities.
Dean McMurtry suggested that if the definition of 'grandparenting' is changed for one program, it necessarily should be changed for Medicine and Dentistry where proposed tuition increases are 106% and 58% respectively. Professor Moorhead asked what the implications would be if 'grandparenting' were granted to incoming classes of HBA, Dentistry, and Medicine. Dr. Davenport stated that not only would this affect the incoming class in 1998-99, but throughout those students' program since increases year over year are limited to 20%. The financial impact of 'grandparenting' the three programs would be approximately $1,050,000.
Dean Tapp stated that he is particularly concerned with students who have been admitted to the HBA program through the Academic Excellence Program (AEP). For them, he argued, the ground rules have shifted substantially. Professor White agreed, and supported the amendment to the amendment on the grounds that the short notice of fee increases to incoming HBA students is unfair to those students.
In response to earlier statements about financial aid, Mr. Armour argued that loans to students are not the answer to financial relief from increased tuition fees. He read two testimonial messages he has received from students who find themselves in desperate financial need. Dr. Davenport emphasized that funds to support such students is increasing significantly, and the administration is committed to ensuring that students in need receive support. He observed, however, that the majority of students in need are not in HBA, Medicine, or Dentistry. Rather, they are in Graduate Studies, Arts, and Social Sciences.
Professor Zamir stated that he would prefer to hear full debate on all the budget issues before deciding the single issue of HBA fees.
Dr. Mercer responded to the broad question of the University's ability to absorb changes to the tuition fees proposed in the budget model. He made the following points:
As a result of systematic failure on the part of government over a number of years to provide adequate funding to the universities, the debate about funding has been shifted 'to the inside corridors of the university'.
Despite government's announcement that the 1998-99 grant to Western would be frozen, because of a number of funding 'envelopes', certain portions have been reduced or eliminated, resulting in a revenue reduction of $830,000.
Underfunding has resulted in a consumption of physical and human resources. Over a period of five years, despite significant increases in tuition, Western has a shortfall of $20 million. There is a deferred maintenance bill of $100 million. In the past five years, the University has lost 620 employees, 17% of its workforce.
If Western had a defined benefit pension plan, as do several Ontario universities, there would be a pension surplus which would allow the University to take a pension holiday. Based on current contributions to the pension plan and recent earnings on investments, the result would be $14.4 million. But Western has a defined contribution pension plan and therefore no pension surplus.
Dr. Mercer summarized by stating that the University has no ability to absorb a reduction in the proposed tuition fee levels. The University's inability to meet financial obligations to support its programs and to bring the excellence needed to be competitive in a highly competitive world will mean continuing erosion of human capital. Without the proposed tuition increases, the University simply does not have enough money to maintain and enhance its programs while preventing erosion and consumption of its capital, both physical and human.
Mr. Singer observed that year over year tuition increases are limited to 20%. He suggested that Senate not consider tuition for 1999-2000 until next year at this time, as part of the budget debate.
Dr. Davenport challenged the notion of 'grandparenting' students who are enrolled at Western prior to entering Year 3 of the HBA program, or Year 1 of Medicine or Dentistry, on the grounds that prior to entering those professional programs, they are registered in other programs. Mr. Adams stated that HBA is distinct in that Western has the only second-level entry HBA program and therefore students coming to Western intent on entering the HBA are taking the risk of not getting into Western's program after completing two years of undergraduate work. He suggested that the same principle does not apply in the case of Dentistry and Medicine. Dean McMurtry rejected that argument and stated that if the HBA class of 1998-99 is 'grandparented', he would not accept the position that it has no relevance to Medicine and Dentistry.
The AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT (S.98-134c) was called and was DEFEATED.
The AMENDMENT TO THE MAIN MOTION (S.98-134b) was called and was DEFEATED.
S.98-134d Limitation of Overall Tuition Revenue
It was moved by M. Cousineau, seconded by K. Howlett,
That (the budget be amended) by limiting the total tuition revenue to a maximum of an $8.5 million increase against the rates established in the 1997-98 budget as a baseline, and,
That there be no consideration of tuition fee increases for 1999-2000 until presentation of the budget in the Spring of 1999.
Mr. Armour, President of the USC, distributed copies of overheads to members and made a detailed presentation to Senate in support of the proposed amendment. His principal argument was that the administration earlier projected a need for an additional $8.5 million tuition revenue for 1998-99, but that the tuition proposals contained in the budget model amount to a great deal more than that. He made a number of charges that suggested that the University is victimizing students through a tuition cash grab, that savings from restructuring and downsizing are not resulting in reduced expenditures, that "the University has essentially become an irresponsible banker or loan agent", and that claims of substantial funds for student support are exaggerated because a majority of those funds are available in the form of "workfare" and loans. In short, he expressed the view that "the University has never had so much money to spend."
Dr. Davenport stated that Mr. Armour's presentation contained a number of errors, but the one that underpins his principal objection is the inclusion of tuition in self-funded programs (MBA, Executive/Video MBA, International Medical Students) in the overall projected increase. The budgets of the self-funded programs are being cut each year, and in return, they keep the tuition fees. Mr. Armour's primary charge is that the administration set a target of $8.5 million in increased tuition revenue and that it is trying to get a lot more than that. Dr. Davenport denied this charge. He referred Senate to Table 1, line 12 (p. 24 of the budget), which reflects an increase of $8.353 million, or 11.6% over 1997-98 tuition revenue. He stated that the only tuition fees that are being discussed today are those reflected on lines 10 and 11of Table 1 of the budget --undergraduate and graduate fees. Tuition fees in lines 13 are not being discussed because they are not under the control of the Senate: as a result of earlier policy decisions by the Senate and Board of Governors, these fees are controlled under the authority of the Ivey School. Dr. Davenport stressed that the administration has been absolutely consistent in its projected tuition increase target. The only change -- down from $8.5 to $8.353 -- is a result of the government defining deregulated programs more narrowly than anticipated.
Dr. Davenport said he interpreted the amendment to mean that line 17 in Table 1 should read $8.5 million instead of $12.716 million. That would represent a budget cut of $4.4 million.
Dean Stokes countered a serious misapprehension in Mr. Armour's presentation that somehow the Faculties are not benefitting from such budget items as "one time allocations" and "corporate fluctuations". These allocations do support Faculties in terms of salaries and support for special academic initiatives.
Dr. Moran addressed another misunderstanding which he saw as implicit in Mr. Armour's calculations -- that the difference between the approved budget and actual budget for 1997-98 is somehow excess money that is available for spending. That is not the case. A large part of the difference is because of the unexpected success in the self-funded MBA programs. This money is not available to the general operating budget of the University: it supports the MBA programs only. Another large component between approved and actual budgets in 1997-98 is from the unanticipated increase in the number of first year students. This is not revenue without expense. A majority of that money goes back to the Faculties in the form of Enrolment Contingent Funding (ECF) to assist those Faculties to provide instruction to those students. In the case of graduate tuition revenue, 75% of this goes to student aid. In summary, the difference between projected and actual budgets is allocated as a result of the normal budget process and the expenses associated with teaching students.
Dr. Mercer agreed with other speakers that there are a number of errors and faulty assumptions in Mr. Armour's document. He denied the suggestion that the University has excess money: it simply is not there. This misapprehension leads to a worse one -- that somehow there is an element of subterfuge in the budget document before Senate. He assured members that the budgetary process is exacting in the amount of details it reveals. He stated that Mr. Armour's misapprehensions are serious, and not something that can get dispelled at this meeting. He offered to meet with Mr. Armour to go through his presentation, point by point.
On request by a Senator, the motion was considered in two parts.
S.98-134d/1 The amendment was called:
That (the budget be amended) by limiting the total tuition revenue to a maximum of an $8.5 million increase against the rates established in the 1997-98 budget as a baseline.
DEFEATED
S.98-134d/2 The amendment was presented:
That there be no consideration of tuition fee increases for 1999-2000 until presentation of the budget in the spring of 1999.
Dr. Davenport spoke against the amendment. Based on submissions made to him and arguments presented at the Senate meeting today, both students and Faculties want as much advanced notice as possible on tuition fee increases. Approval of the amendment would recommend to the Board that there be no reference to 1999-2000 tuition fees in the budget model before Senate. In his view, this would be a very unfortunate move. The administration strained, despite being very uncertain about the budget, to respond to the government's two-year announcement on fees.
Mr. Armour explained that the intention of the amendment is to allow some time for students to discuss and negotiate fees for 1999-2000 over the next year, and that the impact of 1998-99 fee increases could be taken into consideration.
Dr. Davenport referred to Revised Table 10a. Two-year tuition fee levels are proposed for 13,000 undergraduate students and another 1300 graduate students in Master's Category 1 and Ph.D. programs. The administration believes it is important for this majority of students to have some certainty about their fee levels for two years. Second year fees have not been proposed for second-level entry undergraduate programs and Master's Category 2 because in several of those areas, 1998-99 tuition fees have been set at a higher than average level, and it is important to measure the impact of these fees in 1998-99. Several factors will be considered before setting fees for these programs for 1999-2000, including accessibility and competition.
Ms. Howlett asked what would happen if fees set now for 1999-2000 result in a surplus. Dr. Davenport replied that any "surplus" would be rolled right into the next year's budget. Responding to Ms. Howlett's suggestion that this would not benefit students, Dr. Davenport explained that the money would be invested in enhancing the student experience, including the hiring of new faculty.
The AMENDMENT was called and was DEFEATED.
S.98-134e MD Program Tuition Fees
It was moved by I. Black, seconded by E. Singer,
That the main motion (to approve the budget) be amended by the addition of the following phrase: "...(except) that the entering 1998-99 undergraduate Medicine (M.D.) class face a maximum tuition increase of 20%."
Mr. Black spoke on behalf of medical students against the 106.4% increase in MD tuition fees which will bring 1998-99 fees to $10,000. He presented a petition signed by all students in the first two years of Medicine, various faculty members, and a number of members of the community, objecting to this significant increase in fees.
Mr. Black detailed several reasons for objecting to the extreme increase in medical tuition fees over 1997-98 levels, principally:
The increase is based on the administration's claims about the very high per student cost of educating MD students. These figures are flawed. Calculations made by medical students and corroborated by financial officers in the Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry suggest that it costs the University only $876 per student per year over and above what the students bring into the University through tuition and government grants. It is possible that the University is making a minor profit on medical students.
The debt load of a graduate MD after Residency, with the proposed increase in tuition, will be in the order of $100,000. This includes at least a three-year degree program prior to entering the MD program.
Financial aid is not universally accessible; OSAP will provide at most $11,000 per year. Factoring in the proposed $10,000 tuition fee, expenses for a first year medical student in 1998-99 will be in the order of $22,000.
Admission offers to the medical program at Western will be sent out in three weeks; applicants to the program are only now learning of the proposed $10,000 tuition fee.
The administration has not consulted with medical students during the budgeting and tuition-setting process.
Mr. Armour clarified that the students are not objecting to a tuition fee increase, but to the amount of the increase. He spoke in favor of the motion. He observed that Western's competitive edge is already at risk because the new medical curriculum is only in its second year. Now it is proposed that the medical tuition fees will be the highest in the country, and this undoubtedly will cause the best prospective students to choose other medical schools.
Dr. Davenport referred to a position paper that Mr. Black had cited during his presentation that suggests that the cost of educating a medical student is significantly lower than the administration has calculated. He stated that the administration stands by the program costing analysis that appeared in Looking Forward. This was based on the budget of the then Faculty of Medicine, added to it reasonable overhead expenses from the central university budget, gave credit for MTE service teaching, then divided that by the total number of students in Medicine: 400 MD students and 700 graduate students. For the sake of that calculation -- which came to $36,000 per student per year -- the administration pretended that the cost of educating a graduate student was the same as for an MD, even though it is clear that the cost of educating an MD is significantly greater. If that same calculation were done today, the cost per student per year would be $31,000. This figure is consistent with similar calculations done at other North American universities. The numbers presented by Mr. Black include the undergraduate and MTE service teaching which serve to dilute artificially the cost per student calculation.
Dr. Davenport acknowledged that the accumulated debt of medical students is high -- about 80% more than that of Arts and Social Science graduates -- but the earnings of MD graduates are about twice as high as those of Arts and Social Sciences graduates. Data presented by Mr. Armour reveal that the debt default rate of Arts graduates is nearly 24%, whereas default by MD graduates is only 2.9%.
Dean McMurtry stated that the tuition increase for incoming students is an extremely difficult issue. The Faculty is very proud of the success of its graduates on recent LMCC exams, and of the new medical curriculum that faculty, students, and staff have developed together. Nevertheless, the programs in Dentistry and Medicine are staggering under the stress of cutbacks. Staff in the Faculty has been reduced by nearly 30% and full-time faculty numbers have been reduced by 17%. University Full-Time Clinical Appointees have had to absorb cut after cut as the University has been forced to endure. Added to this is the fact that the medical building has a retro-maintenance problem amounting to $28 million. Dean McMurtry stated that despite all initiatives to find alternative sources of funding, the Faculty's ability to function with the current budget is "clearly at the margin." Fees from contracted international medical students, both post-graduate and undergraduate, account for over $1 million in revenue to the base budget of the Faculty, but even that money is in jeopardy due to economic instability abroad.
Dr. McMurtry said the two issues for the Faculty are quality and accessibility; the Faculty will not compromise on either. Having tested all other possible alternatives, the choice between sacrificing quality or accessibility versus increasing tuition fees is very unattractive. But in the end, the Dean stated that he favors the proposed tuition increases because he favors quality and access. He acknowledged support of increasing fees by no more than 20% -- which applies equally to Dentistry and Medicine -- and to this end he urged that the definition of 'grandparenting' be resolved. With respect to accessibility, Dean McMurtry reported that the Executive Committee of the Faculty recently passed a resolution opposing "the tuition increases proposed to the Medicine and Dentistry programs until such time as we can ensure qualified students access to these programs regardless of economic status." He indicated that this issue will be taken up with the University because access is of real concern.
Mr. Prabhakar stated that the banks have indicated that they cannot guarantee bank loans to all students, and one reason for rejecting loan applications is a significant debt load. The fact that Western's MD tuition fee will be the highest in the country will surely discourage students from selecting Western over other medical schools in Canada where the tuition is much lower.
Dr. Moran reiterated that the University is committed to ensuring that there is financial assistance to ensure accessibility; this assistance is required by the government's rules on deregulation of tuition fees. The University is answerable and accountable to the government on that account. He reminded Senate that fees in the Dental program were raised three years ago, with no detriment to accessibility.
Mr. McLachlin observed that the cost of educating a student in the MD program remains in dispute, with the medical students arriving at a figure significantly different than that calculated by the administration. He asked that this issue be addressed, recognizing that this meeting is not the appropriate place. Dr. Davenport stated that he would be happy to work with the Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry representatives and students to discuss program costing.
Dr. B. Singh expressed concern that Ontario's "best and brightest" would choose to go to medical schools out of province, such as the University of Alberta, and particularly now that Western would be taking the lead in increasing fees significantly. Dr. Moran reported that over the next two years the University of Toronto will be raising MD fees to $11,000, and Queen's will be raising fees to $9,600. Reports are not yet in from McMaster, but indications are that their MD fees will be higher than originally contemplated. Ottawa's fees will be the lowest. He stated that what is unique about Ontario's medical schools is that they are profoundly underfunded relative to the rest of the country, and that is why the fees are increasing steeply.
Dr. B. Garcia spoke against the proposed tuition fees, speaking on behalf of her colleagues in Medicine & Dentistry and students in those programs. Referring to the success of the medical class in scoring highest in the country on the LMCC exams, she stated that Western has in the past been able to attract the best students, but that will not continue. Telling students that they will have guaranteed loans is not enough: the fact that tuition will be set at $10,000 is enough to discourage some of the best students, particularly those without significant financial resources from even applying. In the past, it didn't matter how much money a student had or where they came from: everyone had the opportunity to enter medical school based on their own achievements.
Professor Varpalotai spoke on behalf of the Faculty Association. She stated that the Association and OCUFA have long supported public education and accessibility to it. Reflecting on the fact that this year is the first time that government grants have fallen below 50% of revenues the University. She characterized deregulated fees for Business, Medical, and Dental students as "the thin edge of the wedge" and predicted that this will lead the University to privatized post-secondary education.
The AMENDMENT was called and was DEFEATED.
A motion to close debate was moved, seconded, and carried by a two-thirds majority in favor.
S.98-134a The MAIN MOTION was called and CARRIED. K. Barrowcliffe requested that her objection to the motion be recorded in the minutes.
That, effective July 1, 1998, the Applied Music Department be redesignated Department of Music Performance Studies and that the Constitution of the Faculty of Music be amended accordingly.
CARRIED
The Report of the Academic College on the 240th Meeting of the Council of Ontario Universities, detailed in Exhibit V, was received for information. Topics covered at the meeting included: President's Report, Committee on Government and Community Relations, Final Report of the Task Force on Admissions Issues, Committee on Relationships Between Universities and CAATs, AUCC Report, and Report on the Presidential Search Committee.
Announcements and Communications detailed in Exhibit VI, were received for information.
The meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m.
Signed by:
P. Davenport, Chair
J.K. Van Fleet, Secretary