As approved at the January 22, 1999, meeting of Senate. Copies of Exhibits and Appendices not included in World Wide Web information are available from the University Secretariat, Room 290, Stevenson-Lawson Building.
The meeting was held at 1:00 p.m. in Room IR40, The Richard Ivey School of Business.
SENATORS: 79
J. Adams, R. Archibald, D. Banting, P. Barker, A. Belcastro, D. Bentley, D. Braun, R. Bryan, P. Cain, C. Callaghan, P. Canham, J. Clayman, M. Cole, R. Coulter, D. Cunningham, P. Davenport, P. Deane, H. DeLasa, J. Erskine, D. Fairbairn, L. Francis, B. Frohmann, W. Gibson, J. Good, R. Harris, R. Holt, J. Hore, B. Hovius, N. Huner, Y. Kang, A. Katz, G. Killan, M. Kissel, D. Kuntz, S. Lupker, J. MacKinnon, T. Macuda, A. Malowitz, I. Martin, M. Mathur, J. McKay, K. McKellar, D. McLachlin, R.Y. McMurtry, M. McNay, K. McQuillan, P. Mercer, G. Moran, D.G. Muñoz, J. Ndayiragije, A. Norris, K. Okruhlik, A. Pearson, H. Polatajko, A. Prabhakar, S. Provost, D. Rosner, K. Rowe, C. Russell, E. Singer, E. Skarakis-Doyle, D. Small, J. Snyder, D. Spencer, J. Stokes, S. Tan, D. Taub, R. Telfer, I. Thomsen, B. Timney, R. Toft, T. Topic, J. Van Fleet, A. Vandervoort, A. Weedon, G. Weese, D. Williamson, E. Wood, M. Zamir.
Observers: I. Armour, K. Barrowcliffe, R. Chelladurai, B.D. Jameson, R.J. Tiffin, A. Varpalotai
By Invitation: S. Singh, J. Thorp
The minutes of the meeting of November 13, 1998, were approved with the inclusion of the following amendments:
"COU is aware of the problems that this rationalization poses for students in Ontario. Dr. Davenport added that the universities will be thinking about how best to meet the financial needs of students now that the Millennium Scholarship fund will be available and how it should be used to create new funds".
BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES
Dr. Mercer responded to a question that was raised at the November 13 meeting of Senate about discrepancies between the Senate Policy on Accommodations for Students with Disabilities and the Faculty handbook on the implementation of that policy. He confirmed that there are discrepancies that must be rectified. Two obvious discrepancies relate to how academic accommodation is appealed and the Faculty's role in determining the accommodation. Dr. Mercer informed Senate that he will propose amendments to the policy and the handbook to bring the two in line.
The policy approved by Senate recognizes what must be recognized -- that education has been determined by the Ontario Courts to be a "service" under the Ontario Human Rights Code and therefore Western is prohibited from discriminating on the basis of disability in the provision of this "service". The way the policy describes it, an appropriate accommodation for a student with a disability is to be arrived at through consultations involving the student, the instructor and the Office for Services with Disabilities (SSD). It is the role of the SSD to provide sufficient information to the instructor, department or Faculty to permit an informed decision of the most appropriate form of accommodation. The decision making authority under Western's policy is explicitly assigned to the relevant Faculty: "The decision about requests for accommodation rests with the Faculty offering the accommodation." A student who is not satisfied with the Faculty's decision may then initiate a request for relief. The request for relief is identical for that of any other negative academic decision - it proceeds eventually to the Senate Review Board Academic (SRBA). Appeals to SRBA are governed by another Senate policy, Student Academic Appeals. The appeal policy specifically includes appeals against decisions made under the Policy on Academic Accommodations for Students with Disabilities. The onus is on the student to satisfy SRBA that the ruling of the dean was unreasonable or unsupportable on the evidence before the dean. A dean's decision which is appealed to SRBA remains in full force and effect unless overturned or modified by the SRBA.
Dr. Mercer advised that the difficulty is in the way the policy is operated and the way in which that operation would be considered in the full legal context, which means at least the Ontario Human Rights Code and also potentially the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Concerns have been registered by students with disabilities and others over the process that is created by the confluence of these two policies -- the Policy on Accommodations of Students with Disabilities and the rules on appeals. If, for example, an instructor is unsympathetic to the concept of accommodation, then discussion will likely be protracted. There may be demands for further information and if there are demands for confidential information about the student, these are often seen by students as unreasonable. Furthermore, the time required to proceed with an appeal through the SRBA has sometimes left the question moot. If a student wants accommodation for a particular evaluation that is to take place in two months and the appeal is not decided for six months, then the appeal process and the demands of the eventual hearing can actually exacerbate the difficulties and distress being experienced by students.
Dr. Mercer emphasized that both of those features of the policy -- the protracted process potentially and the requests on occasion for information which is confidential -- are potential sources of liability for the University. If a student were to complain to the Human Rights Commission over the failure of the University to provide that student with appropriate accommodation, the fact that the University had complied with its own internal appeal processes would not be a valid defense. It is never a valid defense to an existing law to say that you followed your own non-complimentary procedures.
Dr. Mercer stated that the foregoing was the background to the attempt to provide information and guidance to faculty members through the provision of the Faculty Handbook on the Implementation of the Policy on Academic Accommodations for Students with Disabilities. The handbook makes some changes to the policy in order to make the policy conform to law. Two changes -- one dealing with the role of the faculty member and one dealing with what is to occur while an appeal to SRBA is pending -- have provoked some strong reactions which is understandable because of the discrepancy.
The question remains about whether the implementation document accurately sets out the University's responsibility to accommodate a student with a disability. The Human Rights Code imposes an obligation to accommodate where that accommodation can be provided without undue hardship. That obligation prevails over any of Western's internal policies. Human Rights legislation has been determined by the Supreme Court of Canada to have primacy over other acts of the legislature. It is described as having quasi-constitutional status. While Western is free as a university to decide how it will fulfill the obligation to accommodate and to designate both the people and the means by which it will be accomplished, the University cannot avoid or diminish its obligation by means of internal policies and procedures. Consequently the amendment proposed will be that the policy be put in line with the implementation document. As it now stands the policy stipulates that the decision about requests for accommodation rests with the Faculty and that the SSD shall provide information. That allocation of responsibility by itself is not inconsistent with the Code and the participation of the instructor in the development of the accommodation is quite sensible. However, depending upon how the consultation and the decision making take place, the University may not be able to ensure that its obligations are fulfilled.
The policy right now is unclear on the nature and extent of the information to be supplied to the instructor. One could reasonably construe on reading the policy that the references to information means that the instructor is to be given only the information dealing with the student's functional abilities or needs rather than information about the student's medical condition. However, the policy as it now reads could also be construed to require the provision of medical and diagnostic information necessary to allow the Faculty to decide whether an accommodation is required at all. That creates two serious possible problems for the University. The first is that confidential diagnostic information could be provided to those who are not qualified to receive it and who do not need to know it. The second problem is that the current accommodation policy indicates that the Faculty can decide whether an accommodation is required at all. If the University decides that the accommodation is required by the Code and the instructor decides otherwise, the University could become liable for a breach of the Code which it is powerless to prevent unless it overrules the provisions of the policy. That dichotomy cannot exist. The onus is clearly on the University to accommodate the student.
The other problem relates to Western's appeal process which places the onus on the student to overturn the decision of the Faculty. That is perfectly appropriate where one is talking about an appeal of a grade, but it is not appropriate where the student is seeking an accommodation to which the student is entitled by statute. The obligation rests upon the University to provide the accommodation and not upon the student to achieve it through litigation. Furthermore forcing the student to go through the appeal process may expose the student to further distress which -- if it is caused by the University's determined failure to provide timely accommodation -- would in fact increase the University's liability.
Dr. Mercer stressed that his comments relate to students who are entitled to an accommodation; not every student who claims a disability will be determined entitled to an accommodation. In his view, the handbook -- about which there was wide consultation -- was an attempt to address those issues. The position taken in the handbook that (a) only certain information can be given to faculty members and (b) that the decision to accommodate (that is effected through the SSD's recommendation) must prevail until the appeal process is exhausted. Those issues will be the thrust of the amendments to the policy which will be proposed. Dr. Mercer stated that it is his intention to provide both the policy amendment and the handbook through the normal review process and have them before Senate early in the new year.
Given that there are inconsistencies between the Senate-approved policy and the handbook, Professor Katz asked if the handbook will be withdrawn from the Web and whether the SSD will be advised to disregard it until Senate approves a new version. He observed that there is a law (the Senate policy) and commentary (the implementation handbook) and noted that there might be alternative ways of framing an interpretation that would also be consistent with the law. He questioned why the commentary -- the document that Dr. Mercer and others developed -- has served as official policy and why it should be given more weight than a document developed by anyone else. He asked what general principles are applied, and by whose authority, in treating the handbook as official policy at Western.
Dr. Mercer responded that the implementation document sets out what he and others, including external legal counsel, believe to be the implementation under the policy that would be required in order for the University to conform with the existing law. It is law that is imposed upon the University and the implementation document reacts to that rather than the University presuming to establish the law by writing an implementation document. He emphasized that in his view there is only one clear inconsistency between the implementation handbook and the policy and that is in respect of the effect of an appeal. Currently it is the Dean's decision that prevails until the appeal is exhausted. Dr. Mercer stated that it is his and outside counsel's reading of the law that Western simply could not justify that from a legal standpoint because it would thwart the accommodation of students who were disabled and entitled to accommodation. This could be seen as an unreasonable shifting of the onus to the student. The other discrepancies which were identified and acknowledged are discrepancies only if one chooses one of two reasonably possible interpretations; so the problem is as a result of ambiguity but not clear inconsistency. Again the implementation document takes the position -- which is believed to be the correct legal position -- that only one of those interpretations is acceptable at law, so that in effect one has no choice. But given the fact that it can be read in more than one way reasonably on its face, it is best to amend the policy and handbook that are explicit so that Senate can be assured that what the policy says and what the implementation document says are so congruent that there can be no ambiguity in the future.
Dr. Mercer stated he would not suggest removing the handbook from the Web, but it might be useful to add the caveat to the current policy to the effect that there is a discrepancy and that Senate will soon consider an amendment to the policy to make it conform with implementation document.
Professor Holt observed that according to the University's Act, in all academic matters final authority rests with the Senate. He asked how the implementation handbook could be issued without the explicit approval of the Senate, given that there are discrepancies between the contents of that document and the Senate-approved policy on the accommodation of students with disabilities. Dr. Mercer accepted the point in one respect and it is his intention to propose, through the usual process, an amendment to resolve a technical discrepancy in respect of the appeal process and what decision prevails pending the appeal. He stated that he had taken the position he did with regard to the handbook because there was so much controversy over the scope of the policy and requests from Department Chairs, Deans, and students to have a clarifying document issued. He observed that other clarifying documents are issued within the University that describe the implementation of Senate policies and stated that it is neither his role nor his intention to try to "trump" Senate. As General Counsel to the University, he has an obligation to the institution and the Board of Governors to set out an implementation guideline which puts the University in conformity with the law if otherwise he believes the University will proceed in a way which does not conform with the law and which therefore would expose it to liability.
Professor Lupker stated that the foregoing discussion has been based on the notion that there is a situation where there is an instructor who is essentially denying an accommodation and an SSD which is essentially lobbying for an accommodation. The issue in his department (Psychology) has always been not whether the student should receive an accommodation but which accommodation the student should receive. If the legal obligation is to accommodate the student one must presumably go a little further forward than that to say that the legal obligation is to accommodate the student appropriately. In his view, once that is acknowledged, all the legal arguments are removed. He recalled a letter he received from the Minister of Education last year that said clearly that the determination of what constitutes an appropriate accommodation is highly dependent upon the facts of the individual situation and it is entirely appropriate that these decisions be made within the university. It suggests consultation with the special needs office (SSD), not giving them any rights as will be outlined in the new policy. Professor Lupker remarked on the issue of confidentiality, noting that there is a statement in the implementation handbook which attempts to defend denying access to information when requested by the instructor. The handbook specifically allows the student to completely deny any information being released to the instructor, which Professor Lupker contends is exactly opposite to what is in the policy on accommodation for students with disabilities. There is also a statement of why confidentiality is allowed to be a winning argument, which has nothing to do with the issue of what the SSD keeps confidential from the instructors. Professor Lupker asserted that dealing with these issues by simply saying they exist in law is inadequate when the University has a Senate which makes the academic policy of the University.
Dr. Mercer responded that the substance of the discussion is something that will come forward when the amendment is proposed to Senate, he would not presume to engage on all the points of substance. He stated that the one thing that is clear, the Minister's letter notwithstanding, is that the entire issue of accommodation can become moot if debates about what is an appropriate accommodation are so protracted that the academic year passes to the point where no accommodation will be possible for the student. Under those circumstances, the real issue is what is the status quo that will prevail in order for the University to fulfill its obligations. It is not an easy situation; ultimately it is one that is determined by where the law shifts the balance and in Dr. Mercer's view the balance that has been shifted by the law over the last five years is towards the University's obligation and not to put the onus on the student.
Dr. Harris, Vice-Provost & Registrar, responded to a question posed at the last Senate meeting about special bursaries and bank loans available for students in the Medicine, Dentistry and HBA programs who experienced significant tuition fee increases. The Scotiabank and Western negotiated a plan to provide a preferred loan rate for students in programs with tuition fees above $4500. The proportion of the loan that is accumulated by the student because of the increased tuition fee will become eligible for income contingent repayment for a period of up to thirty months after the student graduates. To date the student take up rate of these loans is relatively low. The data with respect to the Scotiabank loan program is as follows: ten students in the medical program or 10% of the first year class, seven students in the HBA program or 5% of the class, and two students in Dentistry or 4% of the class. Data on students who obtain private bank loans is not readily available. Seventy-four students in the MBA program (9% of students in the MBA program) have taken up preferred rate loans. Copies of slides used during this presentation are attached as Appendix 1 to these minutes [not available on the Web].
Dr. Harris reported that all students are invited to apply for bursaries and awards; the application deadline is October 31. During November and December the applications are adjudicated and additional funds and bursaries are distributed. Currently under review are bursary applications from 182 students in the medical program and from 133 students in the dentistry program. Data relating to applicants from the HBA program is not available.
Dr. Davenport reported that the Premier's Conference on Jobs and Prosperity was held in London on November 20th. Discussion at the conference focussed on the importance of university funding and reversing the decline of grant funding Dr. Davenport addressed the conference on the importance of a broad approach to university education with particular emphasis on the liberal arts. A presentation on the need for financial support of fundamental research was provided by Mr. Bill Buxton, special advisor to the Ontario Jobs and Investment Board.
S.98-296 Validation of Secondary School Curriculum
Dr. Moran reported that he recently circulated a memorandum to Deans, Chairs, and Directors about the process to be followed to validate proposed secondary school curriculum. The Ministry of Education and Training (MET) has accepted a proposal from the Council of Ontario Universities (COU) that will allow Ontario universities to become involved in the validation of courses intended to prepare students for university-level study. Dr. Dalin Jameson, the institutional coordinator for Western, will receive curriculum material from COU and will return Western's responses. He will be asking for nominees to serve on Subject Committees; these committee interact directly with MET regarding the universities' assessment of the courses and any changes that might emerge from that assessment. The Ministry hopes to complete the process by the end of Spring.
Professor Holt asked if it is the Minister's intention to eliminate the extra year by removing Grade 13. Dean Pearson responded that it is intended that the content of the OAC courses be included in Grade 12 courses, but it will require careful study by individuals familiar with particular subjects to make judgments on how that will occur. The COU Task Force on Secondary School Reform will monitor this process and look at other important issues such as the anticipated double cohort and replacement of the "six OAC rule" which is the minimum requirement for admission of any student to university in order for the university to claim credit for that student under the BIU system.
Professor Banting recalled that a recent article in the Gazette about the Fair Funding Grant cited BIU value in Ontario as "averaging $5,704". He asked whether there is a range of BIU value in the Province, whether the average BIU is in fact $5,704, and the BIU value for Western. Mr. Chelladurai stated that the value noted in the article is actually a BOI (Basic Operating Income) which includes grants and fees. The system level BOI average for 1997-98 is $5,704, while the grant portion (BIU) is approximately $3,500.
Dr. Davenport explained that the Fair Funding Grant is a redistribution of funds to compensate for uneven BOI/BIU ratios across the universities consequent upon major enrolment increases at some institutions in the 1970s and 1980s. This measure disadvantages established universities with stable professional programs, such as Western. On a broader level, Western has long argued that the BIU formula is flawed and hence does not agree with the notion of a BOI redistribution.
Professor Lupker referred to his previous comments at the November Senate meeting relating to a letter from the Chair of the Senate Committee on Promotion and Tenure II sent to the UWO Faculty Association and others which suggested that female candidates "may be held to higher standards for promotion and tenure than male candidates. The letter went on to say, "Particularly disturbing were incidents where women candidates were recommended for tenure but not for promotion, even though the committee was able to discern no significant difference between their dossiers and those of male colleagues recommended for tenure and promotion in the same unit."
The report from SCPT-II for 1997-98 [Exhibit V of the Senate meeting of October 16, 1998] indicated that 25 individuals were presented for tenure last year and of those, 23 were presented for promotion. This suggests that two people, gender unspecified, were brought forward for tenure only and not for promotion. The annual report listing individuals granted promotion and tenure has since been released in Western News, revealing that one of the two individuals granted tenure but not promoted is a woman. Professor Lupker therefore challenged the plural use of "women candidates" in the letter from the Chair of SCPT-II. He added that the individual in question was the only person from her unit presented for either promotion or tenure and therefore there could not be any attempt at comparability made between her and someone else.
On behalf of the Operations/Agenda Committee, it was moved by A. Pearson, seconded by B. Timney,
That Jim Roth (Surgery) be appointed to Senate to represent the Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry constituency (term to October 31, 2000).
and
That Jim Davies (Economics) be appointed to Senate to represent the Faculty of Social Science constituency (term to October 31, 2000).
CARRIED
It was moved by A. Pearson, seconded by A. Belcastro,
That the composition of the Standing Committees on Campus Recreation and Intercollegiate Athletics be revised to read as shown below:
...The Standing Committee on Campus Recreation shall be composed of:
(iii) 10 students appointed as follows:
4 by the University Students' Council: 2 male, 2 female
2 by the Kinesiology Students' Council: 1 male, 1 female
2 by SOGS/MBAA: 1 male, 1 female
2 from among the Physical Activities Clubs appointed by a committee consisting of one representative from each of the Physical Activities Clubs, such committee to be convened by
the Chair of the Campus Recreation Program
...The Standing Committee on Intercollegiate Athletics shall be composed of:
(iii) 9 students appointed as follows:
2 male students who are each bonafide members of a different varsity intercollegiate team, such
members to be elected by a committee consisting of one representative of each varsity
intercollegiate team (men), such committee being convened by the Chair of Intercollegiate Athletic
Program
2 female students who are each bonafide members of a different varsity intercollegiate team, such
members to be elected by a committee consisting of one representative of each varsity
intercollegiate team (women), such committee being convened by the Chair of Intercollegiate
Athletic Program
2 to be appointed by the University Students' Council: 1 male, 1 female
1 to be appointed by SOGS/MBAA
2 to be appointed by the Kinesiology Students' Council: 1 male, 1 female
CARRIED
It was moved by A. Pearson, seconded by Y. Kang,
That the composition of the University Research Board be amended to include the Dean of the Faculty of Health Sciences as an ex officio member:
Composition:
Six members of faculty who have strong records of research achievement and a broad interest in research administration, to be elected by Senate. At least one elected member shall occupy a senior position in a Type 3 research centre.
Ex officio:
The terms of the elected members are three years, renewable.
CARRIED
S.98-302a Vice-Chair of Senate
A. Pearson (Education) was elected Vice-Chair of Senate for a one-year term (to November 1999).
S.98-302b Operations/Agenda Committee
A. Prabhakar and D. Taub (undergraduate students) were elected to the Operations/Agenda Committee for one-year terms (to November 1999).
Elected to the Operations/Agenda Committee for two-year terms (to November 2000) were: C. Callaghan (Admin. Staff), D. Jorgensen (Soc. Sci.), J. Nicholas (Arts), K. Okruhlik (Arts) and D. Rosner (Science).
S.98-302c Honorary Degrees Committee
D. Small (undergraduate student) was elected to the Honorary Degrees Committee for a one-year term (to November 1999). Elected to the Honorary Degrees Committee for two-year terms (to November 2000) were: P. Deane (Arts), I. Moore (Engineering Science) and S. Provost (Science).
S.98-302d Senate Committee on Academic Policy and Admissions (SCAPA)
Two Senators were required for membership on SCAPA. As a result, the two Senators nominated -- R. Telfer (graduate student) and B. Timney (Soc. Sci.) -- were elected to SCAPA by acclamation.
S. Geoghegan (graduate student) was elected to SCAPA for a one-year term (January 1 to December 31, 1999) and S. Osborn (Science) and A. Pitman (Education) were elected to SCAPA for two-year terms (January 1, 1999 to December 31, 2000).
On behalf of the Senate Committee on Academic Policy and Admissions, it was moved by Y. Kang, seconded by N. Huner,
That a Four-Year BSc Honors Biology with Environmental Science program be introduced in the Faculty of Science, effective September 1, 1999.
CALENDAR COPY
FOUR-YEAR BSC HONORS BIOLOGY WITH ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE
Admission Requirements
Completion of a 3-year BSc Biology and Environmental Science program, with a minimum average of 70% in all principal courses and no mark less than 60% in any of these.
Students who do not fulfill the requirements specified for admission may be allowed to proceed to this honors degree only with the special permission of the Coordinators of the Honors Biology Program and the Environmental Science Program.
Fourth Year
Environmental Science 494F/G
Either 1.0 senior course from Groups C, D or E (as described in the three-year BSc Environmental Science program), or Environmental Science 350a/b, if not already taken, and a senior half-course from groups C, D, or E.
3.5 full-course equivalents selected from the following: Biology 203F, 204a, 213b, 216b, 217b, 222b, 284a, 304a, 319a, 320y, 328a, 331G, 332a, 335b, 336a, 345a, 346b, 351b, 355b, 359b, 362, 366b, 370b, 392a, 393b, 491E*, Biophysics 467 a/b, Microbiology and Immunology 450a, Pharmacology 460a/b, 463a, Plant Sciences 402a, 403a, 404b, 408a, 450a*, 451b*, 452b, 490a, Zoology 420y, 421y, 434b*, 436G*, 441a*, 444a, 450a/b*, 451b*, 453b*
The fourth year program must include 2 full courses or equivalent at the 400-level, 1.5 laboratory courses, at least one full-course equivalent from among courses offered by each of the Departments of Plant Sciences and Zoology and no m ore than two full-course equivalents from any one department. Students must also include at least one 400-level half-course requiring substantial communication skills, which must be chosen from those courses in the list above which are marked with an *. All proposed Honors Biology with Environmental Science programs must be approved by the Coordinators of the Honors Biology Program and the Environmental Science Program, respectively.
CARRIED
It was moved by Y. Kang, seconded by R. Bryan,
That the Joint Program with Fanshawe College be expanded to allow a student who has completed either the Diploma of Electrical Engineering Technology, or the Diploma of Control Engineering Technology at Fanshawe, to achieve a BSc in Physics with a further two years of study at UWO, effective September 1, 1999.
CALENDAR COPY
(To follow the Three Year BSc Program on page 126 of the 1998 Calendar. This material is not in the 1998 Calendar, because it was approved after the Calendar Deadline)
JOINT THREE-YEAR BSC PHYSICS (UWO) AND DIPLOMA IN ELECTRONICS ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY OR CONTROL ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY (FANSHAWE COLLEGE)
A. Students Commencing their Studies at the University of Western Ontario
Students in this program will study Physics for their first two years. They will then transfer to Fanshawe College, where they will study for a further two years and three months in either Electronics Engineering Technology or Control Engineering Technology. Students in both programs work for a total of sixteen months in CO-OP placements. Successful candidates will be awarded a Three-Year BSc in Physics and a Diploma from Fanshawe College. Students may also choose to study for one additional semester in the Electrical Engineering Technology program and will be granted a second Diploma from Fanshawe College.
Admission Requirements
A first year program that includes Physics 020 or 026, Calculus 050a/b plus 051a/b or Applied Mathematics 026 plus 025a/b, Computer Science 025a or 026a/b plus 027a/b, each with a minimum mark of 60%; one Arts or Social Science course; one option.
All students must consult with the Physics and Astronomy Department before entering year two of the program.
Second Year
Physics 200, 259E, 266b, 277a/b (non-credit)
Applied Mathematics 200 or 275 or 276 or 277 or 281a plus 282b
1.5 options numbered 100 or higher
Note: Options that will be particularly useful in this program include courses in Applied Mathematics, Business, Chemistry, Economics, Mathematics and Statistics. Students should take a half-course in linear algebra before the end of their second year. Applied Mathematics 275, 276 and 277 all have Applied Mathematics 025a/b and 026 as prerequisites. Students transferring from Engineering will have to include Computer Science 027a/b in their second year. Students should consult a counsellor in the appropriate department before selecting their options.
Second Year Summer Term
Students will transfer in May to Fanshawe College to complete Level Three of the common first year of the Electronics and Control Engineering programs. They will spend the next eight months as CO-OP students in industry. At the end of this experience, students must choose to study either Electronics Engineering or Control Engineering.
Registration
In Years One and Two, students will register and pay fees at The University of Western Ontario. For Levels Three to Six, students will register and pay fees at Fanshawe College.
B. Students who commence their studies at Fanshawe College
Students in this program will complete either the Diploma in Electronics Engineering Technology or Control Engineering Technology at Fanshawe College. They will then transfer to The University of Western Ontario where they will study for a further two years. Successful candidates will be awarded a Three-Year BSc in Physics.
Admission Requirements
Students must hold either the Diploma in Electronics Engineering Technology, or the Diploma in Control Engineering Technology, with a minimum cumulative average of "B" (2.7 g.p.a.).
First Year
Physics 020 or 026
Calculus 050a, 051b
One Arts or Social Science Course
2.0 options
To progress into Year II, a minimum of 60% in each of Physics 020 or 026 and Calculus 051b is required.
Second Year
Physics 200
Physics 259E
Applied Mathematics 200 or 275 or 276 or 277 or 281a plus 282b
1.0 option from the Faculty of Science numbered 100 or higher, approved by the Department
1.0 option
To qualify for the Three-Year BSc in Physics, students in this program must:
a. obtain a minimum overall average of 60% in ten courses taken at UWO.
b. obtain a minimum overall average of 60% in the Area of Concentration courses listed and taken at UWO.
c. take a minimum of 5.0 full courses or equivalent numbered 100 or higher at UWO.
d. meet the requirements for the Diploma in either Electronics Engineering Technology or Control Engineering Technology
at Fanshawe College.
e. obtain a minimum cumulative average of "B" (2.7 g.p.a.) in the courses taken at Fanshawe College.
The courses taken at Fanshawe College may only be used to satisfy the requirements of Year III of the BSc degree at UWO.
CARRIED
Dr. Moran confirmed that because of Ministry guidelines, this program cannot be linked to the Access to Opportunities Program.
It was moved by E. Singer, seconded by N. Huner,
That Huron College introduce History 210E: Patterns and Perspectives in World History, effective September 1, 1999.
CALENDAR COPY
History 210E: Patterns and Perspectives in World History The course stresses the interaction over time of major world
civilizations. Emphasis is given to historical developments that have influenced more than one civilization or cultural region.
Prerequisite: One 020-099 History course.
3 hours
CARRIED
It was moved by J. Snyder, seconded by I. Thomsen,
That, effective September 1, 1999, the three-year Bachelor of Arts (Administrative and Commercial Studies) program at King's College be withdrawn and replaced with the four-year general Bachelor of Administrative and Commercial Studies (BACS) program.
CALENDAR COPY
FOUR-YEAR GENERAL BACHELOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE AND COMMERCIAL STUDIES (BACS)
Area of Concentration: Finance and Administration
First Year
Economics 020
One full course or equivalent from: Calculus 050a/b, 051a/b, 08la/b; Linear Algebra 040a/b; Mathematics 028a/b, 030, 031
Business 020
Administrative and Commercial Studies 020a/b and Computer Science 031a/b (or another half course in Computer Science
numbered 020-099)
One designated essay full-course equivalent numbered 020E-099E from English, French, History, Philosophy, Political
Science, or Religious Studies
Second Year
Business 257
Economics 150a/b and 152a/b (permission will be given to students who are registered in Honors Economics and wish to
transfer to the BACS program to count their equivalent Economics courses)
Statistical Science 135 or Economics 122a/b and 123F/G (permission will be given to students who are registered in
Honors Economics and wish to transfer to the BACS program to count their equivalent Economics courses)
Psychology 164 or Sociology 169 or Administrative and Commercial Studies 180
One full-course equivalent option
Third Year
Administrative and Commercial Studies 360a/b and 361a/b or 372
Administrative and Commercial Studies 310a/b and 320a/b
One full course or equivalent from Economics 154a/b, 156a/b, 165F/G, 180a/b, 184a/b; Actuarial Science 153
One full course equivalent option from Philosophy 142E, 203E, 162F/G, 201F/G; Religious Studies 165F/G,167F/G
One full-course equivalent option
Fourth Year
Administrative and Commercial Studies 330a and 410b
Two full courses or equivalent from: Administrative and Commercial Studies 275a/b, 372* (*must be completed if not
taken in Third Year), 460a/b, 46la/b; Economics 162a/b, 163a/b, 164a/b; Geography 372a/b; History 143F/G, 144F/G;
Political Science 211E, 246E; Sociology 309a/b
One designated essay full-course equivalent numbered 200 or above
One full-course equivalent option
Note: Students are encouraged to consult with the Academic Counselor about selecting options from prepared lists of courses that will allow for specialization in various theme areas (e.g. international relations, regional studies, business-government relations, etc.).
Area of Concentration: Organizational and Human Resources
First Year
Psychology 020
Sociology 020
One full course or equivalent from Calculus 050a/b, 051a/b, 081a/b; Linear Algebra 040a/b; Mathematics 028a/b, 030, 031
Business 020
Administrative and Commercial Studies 020a/b and Computer Science 03la/b (or another half course in Computer Science
numbered 020-099)
Second Year
Business 257
Mathematics 028a (if not taken in the first year) and Statistical Science 024b; Statistical Science 023a/b and 024a/b or
Statistical Science 135 or Sociology 231 or Social Work 205
Psychology 164 or Sociology 169 or Administrative and Commercial Studies 180
One designated essay full-course equivalent from English, History, Philosophy, Political Science or Religious Studies
One full course equivalent option
Third Year
Two full courses or equivalent from: Administrative and Commercial Studies 155a/b, 310a/b, 320a/b; Economics 150a/b,
152a/b, 155a/b, 156a/b; History 143F/G, 144F/G, 146F/G; Philosophy 140
One full-course equivalent from: Psychology 150, 154a/b, 155a/b, 170; Sociology 233
One full-course equivalent option from: Philosophy 142E, 162F/G, 201F/G, 203E; Religious Studies132, 165F/G, 167F/G
One full-course equivalent option
Fourth Year
One 200-300 level Administrative and Commercial Studies full course or equivalent in Organizational Behavior
Administrative and Commercial Studies 330a and 410b
One full course or equivalent from Administrative and Commercial Studies 355F/G, 356F/G; Political Science 211E, 246E;
Sociology 308F/G, 309F/G, 314F/G, 315F/G, 316F/G
One designated essay full-course equivalent numbered 200 or above
One full-course equivalent option
Note: Students are encouraged to consult with the Academic Counselor about selecting options from prepared lists of courses that will allow for specialization in various theme areas (e.g. international relations, regional studies, business-government relations, etc.).
BACS (ADMINISTRATIVE AND COMMERCIAL STUDIES)
Combined Areas of Concentration
A number of combined areas of concentration are available within the BACS program. These include Finance and Administration combined with Economics, Finance and Administration combined with French, Finance and Administration combined with Statistics, Organizational and Human Resources combined with Psychology, Organizational and Human Resources combined with Sociology, and Organizational and Human Resources combined with French. Please see BACS counselling for details of these and other possible combinations.
CARRIED
Professor Holt voiced concern about associating the word "general" with a four-year degree. Professor Thorp stated that SCAPA is presently reviewing this issue.
On behalf of the Senate Committee on University Planning, it was moved by G. Moran, seconded by R.M. Mathur,
That Senate approve the Proposal for Academic Space Re-Alignment to Accommodate Instructional Space Requirements as contained in Exhibit IV, Annex 2, at a total preliminary budget estimate of $4.4 million.
Dr. Moran announced that the document on Academic Space Realignment contained in the agenda package is outdated. The correct version is available on the web and was contained with the invitation to the open meeting held on November 26th.
Dr. Moran gave an overview of the proposal on Academic Space Realignment:
Dr. Moran advised that the relocation of the Peacock Room and Café Somerville to Talbot College Cafeteria space has caused the most concern. Some members of the Western community believe that the collegiality of the University would be eroded if the Peacock Room and Café Somerville were moved to Talbot College because it is a less central location. Many options are being considered including: (1) the relocation of the Peacock Room to Room 3320 in Somerville House and utilizing on a temporary basis a portion of the Great Hall as the Café; and (2) utilization of the Wave located in UCC. Refurbishing the kitchen with modern equipment would also save space. Specific proposals for each element of the project will be presented to the Property & Finance Committee of the Board and the Board as soon as possible.
Sources for funding the expansion program could include: deferred maintenance, one-time funds, capital reserve and Access to Opportunity Program (ATOP).
Discussion focussed on the following issues and concerns:
A motion to close debate was carried by 2/3rd majority vote.
The question was called and CARRIED.
SCUP has approved on behalf of Senate the terms of reference for the following new scholarships, bursaries, prizes and awards for recommendation to the Board of Governors, through the Vice-Chancellor:
The annual report of the Senate Review Board Academic for 1997-98, detailed in Exhibit V, was received for information.
Announcements and Communications, detailed in Exhibit VI, were provided for information.
The meeting adjourned at 2:45 p.m.
Signed by:
P. Davenport, Chair
J.K. Van Fleet, Secretary