March 7, 2007

UGFA Response to the Provost’s White Paper

Introduction

This report is the response of the University of Guelph Faculty Association (UGFA) to the Provost’s White Paper “Re-imagining the Undergraduate Learning Experience.” The White Paper recommendations, if implemented, will have a profound impact on undergraduate education and on the roles of faculty and librarians as educators. Representing the professional interests of faculty and librarians, UGFA believes that it needs to make a timely contribution to discussion of the White Paper. The White Paper was released at a very busy time for faculty and librarians, and only a few weeks passed between its tabling and the start of the “rollout process”. Time constraint has, therefore, foreclosed the possibility of a comprehensive campus-wide survey of our members’ reactions to the White Paper. However, we received input from a large number of concerned faculty members and librarians, and this input has helped shape our Response.

The White Paper notes that “the members of VPAC and the Associate Vice Presidents have been intently discussing the issue of the quality of the undergraduate learning experience for two years.” Certainly, it is appropriate for the Provost to lead a process for the re-examination and improvement of teaching and learning at the University. Faculty have spent their entire careers not only discussing the undergraduate learning experience but also contributing, in innumerable ways, to its improvement and should be respected as full partners in the process. As we will elaborate in this report, we value several of the initiatives proposed in the White Paper, but we also have many serious concerns. These concerns will be addressed in this Response paper, under the following headings:

the process of drafting the White Paper;
resource allocation;
impact on faculty/ librarian workload;
impact on faculty/ librarian assessment; and
the planning process for changes to undergraduate education.

In this Introduction, we will consider the overall quality of the White Paper and identify some of the common themes that run through it.

Academics are intellectual radicals at heart and are prepared to question everything. Bold new ideas that defy previously held assumptions are often born in universities. This is why Academic freedom is of primary importance. Nevertheless, new ideas are not necessarily superior to old ones, and we should not embrace change as an absolute value.

We realize that the White Paper is a vision statement rather than an empirical study, but we are disappointed in its lack of background research. Its claims are frequently unsubstantiated or incomplete. For example, the White Paper asserts that “...just as universities in practice do not care about performance in grade nine, graduate schools and employers have effectively no interest in first and even second-year grades” (3.1). Our check of the admissions policies of a handful of prominent graduate and professional schools (seeAppendix) indicates that the assertion is by no means accurate. On the basis of this dubious claim, the White Paper suggests that we “explore the feasibility of recording only binary grades in the first and possibly second year” (3.1.1). Examining the admissions policies of graduate schools and professional schools (seeAppendix), one discovers that this assertion is by no means valid. We are very concerned that the implementation of the proposed changes would place our students at serious disadvantage (for example, when applying for summer jobs).

The White Paper pays close attention to the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) and intends to meet the challenge set by the five key “benchmarks” of NSSE (2.2.4) . These benchmarks are “academic challenge,” “active learning,” “student-faculty interaction,” “enriching educational experiences,” and “supportive campus environment.” UGFA is certainly keen to find out where the University stands on these important benchmarks and we look forward to the public release of Guelph’s 2005 NSSE results. However, the White Paper ignores an important finding reported in the 2005 NSSE Annual Survey which observed that “Institutions that invest more in faculty resources, as measured by the percentage of classes with less than 20 students, student-faculty ratio, and percent of faculty that are full-time, score higher on all five NSSE benchmarks” (2005 Report, p. 23). The White Paper makes one explicit mention of student-faculty ratio, but brushes this parameter aside as an unimaginative approach to improving undergraduate education - a “quantitative” rather than “qualitative” solution (section 4). Again, faculty are being blamed for the predictable consequences of administrative policies in enrollment and faculty hiring.

We detect that an undercurrent that runs through the White Paper: disdain for faculty efforts. Perhaps the clearest manifestation of this attitude is the top-down approach with which this document was prepared, as discussed later in this Response. Consultation after the presentation of the White Paper, such as the process outlined in “At Guelph”, Jan. 25 (“21^st Century Curriculum Steering Committee”, Town Hall meeting, etc.) is at best a weak substitute for broadly-based development of the document from the beginning.

Contrary to the characterization of University of Guelph teaching practices presented in the White Paper, we believe that our faculty and librarians deserve great commendation for demonstrable success, commitment to the improvement of teaching, and active participation in an ongoing hands-on process of “re-imagination.” Faculty and librarians take pride in their professional work. They are excited by teaching students -- presenting lectures, answering eager questions, explaining concepts one-on-one and providing training in research methods. Teaching environments where the professor and students can interact closely, such as laboratories, small classrooms, and tutorials, are particularly valuable. We all know that students learn more effectively in such environments. Unfortunately, each year, such opportunities become rarer. Faculty and librarians are working in an environment of ever-increasing stress. Introductory classes, which used to be taught in sections of perhaps 300 students, are now taught in sections of 400 or 600 students. Upper-level classes which, a few years ago, had enrollments of a few dozen students, have grown to 100 or more. Administrative tasks assigned to faculty have increased steadily because of administrative “down-loading” and cost-cutting. Budgets for teaching assistants are under ongoing attack while there is pressure to increase graduate enrollments and further shift away from undergraduate teaching. We are saddened that the White Paper blames faculty and librarians for declining standards and student disengagement. We believe that the administrative policies have played the largest role. As one faculty member commented “The only thing that is keeping this place going is the extra effort being put in by faculty”.

The present White Paper is certainly not the first university document to call for measures such as more opportunities for students to study internationally, additional first-year seminars, greater involvement of undergraduate students in research activities, and increased emphasis on writing skills. Many of these recommendations were already made some years ago by the University of Guelph Strategic Planning Commission (1993). But these initiatives have yet to be consistently implemented by proper funding allocation and institutional infrastructure; in fact just this past semester the Centre for International Programs has had their budget cut. Against this institutional history, the White Paper demonstrates yet again the failure to assess the workload and resource implications of the proposed changes in question. What we want to emphasize is that, this time, the proposed changes are packaged under an institutional overhaul of undergraduate education. Hence these changes, if adopted, will likely affect the terms and conditions of employment for faculty and librarians, which are the purview of the Faculty Association. This means that any changes to existing agreements must be negotiated with UGFA.

In the following sections of our report, we discuss in more detail the areas of concern identified above.

The Process of Drafting the White Paper

The Provost states that the White Paper is a document that “synthesizes” discussions regarding undergraduate education held by University Curriculum Committees, members of VPAC, and the Associate Vice President. While faculty, librarians, staff, and students are now invited to join the discussion, a question remains disturbingly unanswered. Why is it that the White Paper was developed and drafted by the Provost’s Office, without the formal involvement of other agencies, such as Senate, UGFA, or students?

Perhaps the answer is that the White Paper was merely meant to serve as a discussion paper. However, a discussion document differs significantly from a White Paper. Generally speaking, a discussion paper (sometimes referred to as a Green Paper) is a document that provides suggestions and proposals meant for discussion, approval, or amendment amongst a wide audience of critical stakeholders.
*A White Paper, on the other hand, is generally considered to be a “detailed authoritative report” of proposed policy. **According to the Parliament of Canada web site ***: “The term white paper is now more commonly applied to official documents ... which state and explain the government’s policy on a certain issue ... separating them clearly from the so-called “green papers” which are issued by government to invite public comment and discussion on an issue prior to policy formulation.” Since neither UGFA, nor Senate, nor students were invited to participate in the preparation of the White Paper, stakeholders may worry that the Provost is presenting this paper as a “White Paper” in the traditional sense described above.

This consideration raises a serious concern for UGFA and its members. Historically, the relationship between faculty / librarians and the University Administration has been built on trust, bilateral consultation, and collegiality. Indeed “CAUT has always espoused, as a fundamental principle, the notion of collegiality within the university structure.” **** Such collegiality provides the mechanism through which common objectives can be realized within a rational and trusting environment.
*****

UGFA’s position is that the Administration’s process for developing this White Paper lacked collegial bilateral consultation, and constitutes a general lack of respect for faculty and librarians knowledge, experience, and input. Moreover, we believe that the non-consultative top-down process with which this White Paper was prepared is dangerously close to breaching the principles of academic freedom of faculty and librarians, as set out by the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT). CAUT’s “Policy Statement on Academic Freedom” states that

“academic freedom requires that academic staff play a major role in the governance of the institution. Academic freedom means that academic staff must play the predominant role in determining curriculum, assessment standards, and other academic matters.”

While the Administration needs to have the necessary autonomy to operate the University, there are clear areas where the involvement of UGFA is critical. The development of a White Paper dealing with undergraduate education is undoubtedly one of those areas. Since this involvement did not precede the development of this policy, the Administration’s approach in this instance further serves to erode the very foundations of our relationship. These concerns have not been allayed, but indeed, have been exacerbated by the creation of the 21st Century Curriculum Steering Committee, which, we note, has membership from various departments/Associations, but not from UGFA.

2. Resource Allocation

Readers of the White Paper are presented with a bewildering array of approaches to “re-imagine the undergraduate learning experience” at the University. However, many faculty members feel that, rather than “re-imagining” the undergraduate learning experience, they need only to remember it. We remember: more course offerings; smaller class sizes; ten or eleven laboratory periods in science courses that now have five (or even zero); field trips and face-to-face discussion sections that have since been degraded to online computer exercises; having the time to comment on essay assignments; set challenging exams that test a broad array of skills, rather than machine-graded multiple choice tests. We also remember when courses were taught by permanent faculty who had a long-term presence on campus and were able to build meaningful relationships with the students, rather than by temporary teachers hired on an ad hoc basis. All of these elements, which we have lost in recent years, do not need to be “re-imagined”: they need to be remembered and recovered.

The White Paper does not acknowledge that these fundamental erosions of the undergraduate experience at Guelph have occurred primarily because of budget cutbacks and resource allocations away from the central teaching mission of the University. Instead, the White Paper depicts these losses as innovations. This creates further anxiety at a time when the Integrated Planning process threatens budget cuts of up to 18%. UGFA and its members have many questions about the way in which the White Paper envisions reallocating already-scarce resources to fund the sorts of massive changes in educational structure it suggests. We anticipate severe resource constraints in at least four major areas:

faculty complement;
inordinate reliance on contractually-limited faculty, sessional instructors, and graduate students to perform duties properly assigned to probationary and tenured faculty;
scarcity of well-equipped classrooms;
lack of funds to support research initiatives in laboratory space and equipment, and in library resources. Replacement of public funding by corporate funding can provide new resources but poses new threats to our independence and integrity.

Our review of the White Paper finds at least forty instances where inadequate resources will constrain implementation (see Table 1). In many cases, the deficiency identified has already been caused by the failure of governments to maintain support for the university sector. While we cannot discuss in detail all these issues, three stand out as requiring particular comment.

Section 3.2 raises the prospect of problem-based and inquiry-based learning, modeled after programs offered by McMaster Medical School and by OVC (see Table 1), and suggests that this approach be considered generally across campus. But student: faculty ratios at OVC are the lowest on campus. Resource support for veterinary medicine students is far above the average per capita support for students across the institution. Any serious consideration of the breadth of application of problem-based learning must first make the commitment to provide the required resources. It is an Administration responsibility to cost out these programs and to determine whether the required resources are available. This analysis must be performed before one asks faculty to spend more of their already-pressured time discussing an initiative that is unlikely to be implemented.

Section 2.2.2 considers the issue of prompt feedback. We agree that this is an important element in a strong undergraduate learning experience. The demand for prompt feedback raises numerous resource constraints, however; class sizes must be smaller and there must be a significant increase in the number of full-time, permanent faculty who can offer prompt evaluation, meaningful one-on-one discussion with students, and then a second evaluation of revised work.

Section 3.7 introduces the concept of Universal Instructional Design (UID) and suggests that this should be broadened, possibly even required, across the University. UID involves making learning materials available to students in many different ways, such as standard lectures, recorded lectures, web-based content, and so on. The laudable objective is to “level the playing field” for students with disabilities or weaknesses in specific ways of learning. The resource implications for this initiative are substantial. For both logistical and academic reasons, the University must respect differences in teaching methods according to discipline, course level, and each professor’s personal style and talents. Students do not all learn in the same way. Similarly, professors do not all teach in the same way. We believe that the University should respect our training and professionalism, allowing us to choose the methods that work best for us in a particular context.

As faculty and librarians give serious consideration to this White Paper, it is incumbent upon the Provost to identify the resource constraints of the various initiatives and to establish a prioritized list. At that point, faculty and librarians can devote some of their valuable time to considering new ways to invest these resources and thereby enhance the undergraduate learning experience at Guelph.

3. Impacts on Faculty/Librarian Workloads

Many of the proposed initiatives refer to the teaching of small classes at the junior (1000 or 2000) levels. Since junior courses have the highest enrollments and the most diverse student skill sets, there will be increased workload for faculty in designing, teaching, supervising, and implementing these courses for all students. Unless additional teaching resources are made available, the introduction of new small classes at the junior levels will inevitably be accompanied by compensatory increases in the sizes of existing lecture courses, and this will result in increased workload for grading and TA supervision. The current limited offering of first year seminars is mainly taught by academic administrators and a handful of faculty. To make these seminars available to all entering students will increase teaching workloads for faculty, including junior faculty. As it stands now, these first year seminars are sustainable only to the extent that the majority of students are willing to accept ever increasing class sizes.

Non-graded initiatives (work/life plans, residence activities) will still require much work from the faculty to make them worthwhile, and, as such, will increase faculty workload, without guarantee that this increase will be noticed at T&P time (since these tasks would likely not be classified as teaching units or standard administrative assignments). These tasks may affect faculty Distribution of Effort and also exacerbate the inequality of teaching loads across units and programs on campus.

Pass/fail grades at the junior levels will hamper some disciplines that require specific skill acquisition in the early years to make the senior courses manageable. Without the ability to distinguish the level of ability/skills acquired at a junior level, senior courses will require far more teaching resources to handle gaps in student skills. If more TA’s are not forthcoming, this workload will fall onto faculty members.

Finally, any major revamping of course design and delivery will require faculty to undertake a massive effort of curricular renewal, course preparation, and in some cases, instructional retraining. This will have to happen while the present curriculum is on offer. The design and implementation of the White Paper initiatives may create a transition period during which teaching workloads are effectively increased. The White Paper does not acknowledge that many departments have already undertaken their own curriculum reviews to address many of the same issues tabled here.

White Paper sections 2.1.2, 2.2.3, and 3.3, among others, focus on student-led discovery and the link between undergraduate teaching and research opportunities. The focus on individualized research plans for all students will have significant impacts on mentoring time of both faculty and librarians. Moreover, if these student-led learning plans are not constrained by our core strengths, as defined by the current curriculum, the library collections and/or extended web-based resources will need to be considerably increased to meet an immense variety of new academic needs. Where does the White Paper address the significant underfunding of the library on campus? With such a dramatic increase in student enrolment and more pressure to intensify research activities, there must be a corresponding expansion of physical space, computer and electronic workstations, and available research source material. To believe otherwise is unrealistic.

4. Impacts on Assessment of Faculty and Librarians

Many of the initiatives outlined in the White Paper affect areas of concern regarding faculty assessment and may come into conflict with the contractual provisions of the Special Plan. We see at least three such areas.

As one faculty respondent wrote, “several recommendations imply that Faculty would be given new and additional responsibilities beyond those normally associated with teaching.“ Initiatives focusing on general mentoring tasks, residence community mentoring, and supervising/ approving student “Learning Plans“, may fall outside Faculty responsibilities as defined in the Special Plan. These are workload issues but they are at the same time assessment issues, since faculty/ librarian participation in those extraordinary assignments might be used in the evaluation of faculty performance. We also note that those initiatives that ask Faculty to intervene in the lives of students outside of their assigned courses carry substantial risks and liabilities.
The White Paper discusses the issue of contact hours and the credit system, at some depth. In its critique of the present system, the White Paper notes that “the chief advantage of the contact hour/credit system is that it provides easy-to-measure quanta“. The document seems to collapse two separate discussions here: one pertaining to student learning, and the other to faculty workloads. Changes to contact hours and credits as quanta for measuring faculty performance would need to be reviewed in light of the Special Planand Faculty Policies.
A corporate-derived, “output“-based assessment system for faculty performance is not appropriate in our not-for-profit, higher-education setting. The use of managerial metrics in an attempt to quantify some sort of “output“ fails on two basic accounts. It neither reflects the true nature of contemplative, thoughtful, long-term academic work, nor does it recognize that students’ intellectual growth is not under the faculty member’s control. The importation of these concepts and terms from another, quite different work context threatens to undermine the nature of both student and faculty assessment. To gauge our success by a rigid, externally-derived numerical standard is to reduce learning to the lowest common denominator, which would seem to be at odds with the White Paper’s vision of encouraging individual student achievement and supporting high standards among diverse fields of study.

Outside of the areas that directly conflict with the Special Plan and Faculty Policies, we are also concerned about the reference to “the obsessive focus on inputs rather than outputs“. Within this section and throughout the White Paper, we see three significant issues.

The notion of “output”-based assessment systems raises concerns about the possible shift of emphasis of workload away from faculty work assignments to work product. We are concerned that the concept of assessment of faculty based on “output” of student ability in either academia or industry reflects a plan to shift faculty and institutional roles from a liberal education focus to a job-training focus. Our role is to educate citizens, not to “credential” them so that they may qualify for specified jobs. There is an inherent contradiction in the White Paper’s desire to create universal standards for both faculty and students, while claiming to value individuality and personal attention and assessment.
The White Paper has identified student-based quantified teaching evaluation as a questionable way of measuring the “professional output” of Faculty (2.1.5). We agree with the White Paper that this one-sided approach to teaching evaluation, which often reduces the quality of teaching into whether the students like you, is not to be endorsed with or without “re-imagining the undergraduate learning experience.” We need only to remind the Administration that the teaching dossier was originally put forth as a holistic approach to assessing Faculty teaching. The teaching dossier should, in principle, demonstrates the entire process of teaching, from preparation to delivery to evaluation of students. We urge the Administration to live up to this commitment by ensuring that the T & P process indeed does not simply focus on “various tangible outputs and achievements” (2.1.5)..
An “output“-based assessment system for faculty may be appropriate for a corporation, but does it belong in academia? Assessment of academic faculty must always be done with respect for academic freedom underpinning any qualitative or even quantitative measure. The principle of academic freedom implies the liberty to pursue knowledge and express opinion as seen fit by the faculty member, not by an institution. Corporatist notions of “assessment” imply the need to provide individual goals that meet the corporation’s objectives. Thus, under “output”-based assessment criteria set by the Administration, academic freedom is constrained to opinions or actions that are in line with the Administration’s objectives.

Corporate assessment criteria may be appropriate for those who are responsible for a financial bottom line. However, the bottom line for both faculty and librarians is academic: the discovery and dissemination of knowledge through research, publication, and teaching.

5. The Planning Process

Planning is defined “the act of formulating a program for a definite course of action” (www.wordreference.com). Unfortunately, while the White Paper contains many interesting and intriguing ideas about undergraduate teaching and the undergraduate experience as a whole, the document is not structured to serve as a planning document for the University community.

The document is configured along two main “axes”: Vision and Initiatives. These two sections are not coupled sufficiently tightly to provide a solid foundation for exploration and implementation of a re-imagined undergraduate curriculum. A planning document must give direction: that includes identifying stakeholders, specifying resources, and setting boundary conditions on what is, and what is not, included in the exercise. If the White Paper were purely a vision statement meant to stimulate discussion, this criticism would not be so serious, but the document does contain statements concerning Initiatives. Some of these Initiatives are very specific (e.g., recommending the adoption of certain types of courses and grading schemes). If the document is meant to promote these Initiatives then a full statement of the resources, timeframes, personnel and success indicators to be used must be part of the discussion. Sadly, these are absent. Too often these gaps cause confusion and disillusionment at the grassroots, because the pathway to implementation is murky and the rewards for attempting to comply with the spirit of the initiative are too uncertain.

If this White Paper is to lead to true “re-imagination of the undergraduate experience”, then another companion document must be produced that is rooted in the financial and professional realities of the University. This document must address details of funding, timelines, personnel, professional development, societal expectations, and student expectations and skills. Without this level of detail to ground the planning process, the White Paper will remain just a “vision” document.

6. Conclusions

UGFA welcomes the ongoing re-examination of undergraduate education at the University of Guelph as a useful exercise in self-reflection. Indeed, we take pride in our members’ pro-active efforts in this arena of academic life. However, we are disturbed at the lack of consultation and grass-roots involvement in the development of the White Paper and, at least to date, in its “roll-out” process. We recollect the disappointing record of past administrative exercises aimed at “re-imagination” of the undergraduate experience, such as the Strategic Planning efforts of the mid-1990s. Grand schemes often founder when they collide with the everyday realities of financial and human resource limitations. We are concerned that once again faculty and librarians will invest their valuable time evaluating an extensive series of proposals, many of which may never proceed to the implementation stage.

At the University of Guelph, Administration-imposed cutbacks have led to larger class sizes and to inappropriate reliance on teaching by contractually-limited faculty and sessional instructors, rather than by probationary/ tenured faculty. Some other universities have been much more successful raising philanthropic support for undergraduate education than has the University of Guelph. UGFA welcomes the opportunity to improve and enhance the undergraduate experience at the University of Guelph. However, it is unfair and diversionary for the Administration to shift the blame for weaknesses in our academic programs from management to the academic staff.

David Josephy, Chair
Scott Colwell
Alan Filewod
Theresa Lee
Denis Lynn
Karen Racine
Deb Stacey

Approved by UGFA Executive and Council.

*For Example, the Random House Dictionary defines a green paper as “a report presenting the policy proposals of the government, to be discussed in parliament.“ Cambridge International defines a green paper as a document prepared “for anyone to study and make suggestions...before a law is changed or a new law made.“
Back to Response

** Websters
Back to Response

***www2.parl.gc.ca/Parlinfo/Pages/WhitePapersAppendix.aspx
Back to Response

****Source: “Discussion Paper: Governance and Librarians“, CAUT Librarians Committee, March 11, 2000
Back to Response

*****Source: James L Bess (1988) “Collegiality and Bureaucracy in the Modern University: The Influce of Information and Power on Decision-Making Structures.“
Back to Response

Table 1.

Initiatives raised in the Provost’s White Paper and resource considerations that constrain their implementation

Section	Initiative	Resource Constraint
2.1.1	Creation of exit criteria	Bureaucracy to devise, administer, and record criteria
2.1.2	Reject lecture model	Number of faculty available for small groups, classroom space, immature and unprepared students who need guidance, Faculty Policy
2.1.2, 2.2.3, and 3.3	Student-led discovery, Immersion of undergraduate students in research opportunities	Faculty numbers and time to plan and administer research projects, more library resources, classroom, lab, and meeting space, funds to support expendables, funds to provide equipment
2.1.3	Redraw prerequisites and co-requisites	Reorganize calendar, negate curriculum redesign already carried out; faculty time to rewrite courses and programs
2.1.3	Redefine course unit	Complicates scheduling, student programs and flow through
2.1.4	Quantify skills learned	Skills are often not reducible to quantification; faculty time needed to assess and record data beyond what is done in individual classes
2.1.5	Holistic assessment	Faculty time, greater expenditure of student time on presenting material for assessment rather than actual learning
2.1.5	Get rid of contact hours	Organizational confusion, redraw the entire curriculum, complicate faculty scheduling, Faculty Policy
2.2.2	Prompt feedback	Faculty numbers and time (need smaller class sizes to do it), more GTAs for discussion, grading, office hours
2.2.2	High expectations for students	Smaller class sizes, bureaucracy to deal with inevitable complaints, more library resources to facilitate quality work
2.2.3	Better train graduate students as TA’s	Faculty time (taken from undergraduate teaching)
2.2.3	Change faculty reward system	Demand on faculty time (more teaching, continue research, but “on your own time” now), Faculty Policy
2.2.4 and 3.1.1	Mentoring: Establish mentoring program, particularly in first six weeks	Faculty numbers and time
2.3.1	Challenge the learner	Need support services, remedial learning centres
2.3.2	First-year scholars	Faculty time, classroom space, more resources in the library
2.3.3	Service-learning	Bureaucracy to administer, faculty time, student time and effort and resistance
2.3.4	Student time to reflect - “Learning in Context”	Student time (while working, studying, living etc)
3.1.1	Support students in transition, providing intervention programs	Faculty and staff numbers and time to identify students and to intervene
3.1.1	Stabilize and extend the First Year Seminar program	Faculty and staff numbers and time; classroom space
3.1.1	Assign a faculty mentor to each residence learning community	Faculty numbers and time
3.1.1	Explore delivery of more support services via the web Portal system	Staff time; computer resources
3.2	More broadly introduce problem-based and inquiry-based learning, such as at McMaster Med. School and OVC	Faculty numbers to establish appropriate faculty: student ratios, staff numbers, library resources, classroom space, funds for equipment and expendables
3.2.1	Undertake a radical re-examination of curriculum delivery by departments and program committees	Faculty and staff time
3.3	Inventory current research opportunities for undergraduates	Faculty and staff time
3.4	Identify and develop “writing-intensive” courses	Faculty and GTA numbers
3.5	Revitalize faculty exchanges with foreign universities	Faculty travel expenses, replacement of faculty while away
3.5	Provide incentives for departments to create international curricula	Support funds for faculty release time or replacement of faculty
3.5	Create one or more Master’s level degrees in interdisciplinary or international studies	Faculty numbers and time, funds to provide support for travel and accommodation
3.5.1	Establish language requirements for some or all undergraduate programs	Faculty numbers and time in School of Languages and Literature
3.6	Expand the Community Service Learning initiatives	Faculty and staff numbers and time
3.7	Requirement to broaden and/or require implementation of Universal Instructional Design	Faculty and staff numbers and time, funds for additional equipment and learning resources
3.8.1	Pursue efforts to convert a significant number of our face-to-face courses to hybrid or blended formats	Faculty and staff numbers and time, funds to support development of computer and media resources
3.8.1	Technological upgrades to classrooms as recommended by the Classroom Planning Committee	Funds for equipment and renovation to classroom spaces
3.9.1	Encourage development of full capstone semesters	Faculty and staff numbers and time, resources, both in equipment and expendables, to support increased demand
3.10.1	Ensure appropriate physical space is available for extracurricular activities	Classroom space
3.11.1	Establish a broadly-based, institution-wide assessment committee	Faculty and staff time

Back to Response

Appendix 1

1. University of Toronto Faculty of Medicine

Calculation of GPA/Weighting Formula

Generally, a grade point average of 3.6 on a 4.0 scale is the minimum acceptable for students. Because enrolment is limited and admission to the Faculty of Medicine is competitive, the possession of the minimum requirements does not ensure acceptance. The academic score is calculated using the following formulae:

Applicants Who Have Taken a Full Course Load

The following formulae may be used for students who have taken a full course load (five full credits) for academic credit, during the regular academic session, in each of their academic years.

Application after completing two years of university education, and during the third year of a university program:
GPA will be calculated using grades from all courses completed on a full-time basis during the two completed years of university.

Application after completing three or more years of a university program:
GPA will be calculated eliminating one full-course grade per full year of study. Students applying after completion of three years of study will have their lowest 3 full-course equivalent grades removed from the GPA calculation, after completion of four years, their lowest 4 full-course equivalent grades, etc. This calculation is designed to encourage students to take demanding, advanced courses which advance their education during their undergraduate years.

2. UBC Law School

FAQ:

Do you look at all my marks? Do you eliminate any credits?
We consider all complete courses leading to your first undergraduate degree. If you are currently enrolled in your final year, those courses will not be included in the calculation of your GPA. We do, however, exclude 12 of your worst credits if you have a four-year degree, (the equivalent of 4 semester courses or two year long classes). If you are in your third year when you apply we will exclude 6 of your worst credits.

3. Faculty of Graduate Studies, Dalhousie University

2.2 Master’s Degree Programme

Candidates for admission must hold at least a Bachelor’s Degree with a minimum B average from a university of recognised standing, with the following conditions:

For entry into a Master’s programme with a thesis requirement, candidates must hold a Bachelor’s Degree with an honours or the equivalent of honours standing as granted by Dalhousie University in the area in which graduate work is to be done or an area which is relevant to the graduate work. A four (4)-year Bachelor’s degree may be considered as equivalent of honours if there is evidence of independent research capacity (such as a research project as part of a class) or if the degree is officially approved as an honours equivalent. In those cases where a candidate has a three (3)-year degree and an honours programme was not available to them, first-class candidates will be considered for admission to a two-year programme.

4. University of Ottawa, Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies

General Regulations and Procedure of the FGPS*

A - Admission
Admissions to graduate programs are administered under the authority of the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies (FGPS). The offer of admission is issued either directly by the FGPS or by a representative of another faculty to whom the FGPS has explicitly delegated responsibility for making offers on its behalf. Candidates must meet or surpass the minimum conditions stipulated by the FGPS in addition to any other requirements specified by the program to which they are applying. All exceptions must be submitted to the FGPS.

1. Requirements
Requirements for admission shown below are the minimum requirements of the FGPS. Additional requirements for individual disciplines are given in the calendar section relevant to each discipline.

As a general principle, applicants cannot expect automatic admission simply because they meet the minimum requirements. Academic units** will also consider an applicant’s aptitude for graduate research, as well as the availability of places in the academic unit.

1.1 Master’s Program

Students holding an honours bachelor’s degree or its equivalent with a minimum average of 70 per cent (B) or equivalent, calculated in accordance with FGPS guidelines, may be considered for admission to the master’s program in their discipline.
Applicants to the master’s program may, in some cases, be recommended for admission to a qualifying program designed to bring their knowledge to the level required to pursue a graduate degree in the discipline concerned. Satisfactory performance in the qualifying program is necessary for admission to the master’s program.

News