AgendaforUniversitySenate
8:30am,Saturday,April26,2014
ExeterRoom,MarquisHall
1.
OpeningRemarksandIntroductions
2.
AdoptionoftheAgenda
4.
BusinessfromtheMinutes
3.
5.
MinutesoftheMeetingofOctober19,2013–pp.1‐17
President’sReport–pp.18‐24
5.1Forapproval:Vision2025:FromSpirittoAction
6.
ReportonUndergraduateStudentActivities–MaxFineDay,President,USSU
8.
Education/Discussion–FinancialSustainability–pp.25‐26
7.
9.
ReportonGraduateStudentActivities–EhimaiOhiozebau,President,GSA
ItemsfromUniversityCouncil
9.1
9.2
9.3
9.4
10.
9.5
ReporttoSenateonUniversityCouncilActivities2013/14‐pp.27‐37
ForConfirmation:DisestablishmentoftheEnvironmentalEngineeringDivision
– pp.38‐45
ForConfirmation:Dentistryadmissionqualificationschanges–pp.46‐68
ForConfirmation:MedicineMCATadmissionqualificationchanges
– pp.69‐88
ForConfirmation:CGSRNursePractitionerqualificationchanges–pp.89‐99
SenateCommitteereports
10.1
ExecutiveCommitteeReport(IleneBusch‐Vishniac)
10.1.1ForApproval:Amendmentstoboundariesoftheelectoraldistricts
– pp.100‐102
10.1.2 ForApproval:NominationsformembersofNominationsCommittee
2014‐15–p.103
10.1.3 ForInformation:SpecialcommitteetoreviewtheStandardofStudent
ConductinNon‐AcademicMatters–pp.104‐105
Senate Agenda
10.2
April 26, 2014
NominationsCommitteeReport(AnnMarch)
10.2.1ForApproval:NominationsforStandingCommitteesandPositions
– pp.106‐107
10.2.2ForApproval:ChairofSenateHearingBoards–p.108
10.2.3 For Approval: Re-election of Senate representative on the
Board of Governors – pp. 109-110
10.3
10.4
MembershipCommitteeReport(JoyCrawford)‐p.111
ForApproval:RecommendationonOrganizationstojoinSenate–pp.112‐114
RoundtableonOutreachandEngagementReport(HeatherMagotiaux)
ForInformation:SenateRoundtableonOutreachandEngagementReport
– pp.115‐117
10.5 ConfidentialHonoraryDegreesCommitteeReport(IleneBusch‐Vishniac)
(note: materials not included)
11.
ForApproval:HonoraryDegrees
ItemsforInformation
11.1 UpdateonEnrolment(RussellIsinger,UniversityRegistrarandDirectorofStudent
Services)
11.2 UpdateonSenateElections(ElizabethWilliamson,UniversitySecretary)
11.3
12.
13.
14.
PolicyOversightCommitteeReportSeptember2012‐March2014
(ElizabethWilliamson,UniversitySecretary)–pp.127‐132
OtherBusiness
QuestionPeriod
DatesofConvocationsandFutureSenateMeetings
SpringConvocation2014:TuesdaytoFriday,June3–6,2014
FallSenate2014:Saturday,October17,2014
FallConvocation2014:Saturday,October25,2014
SpringSenate2015:Saturday,April25,2015
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF SASKATCHEWAN SENATE
SATURDAY, October 19, 2013
8:30 AM – 2:30 PM – EXETER ROOM, MARQUIS HALL
Present: Blaine Favel (chair), D. Agema, W. Albritton, J. Alexander, L. Ashley, B. Banda, A.
Baxter-Jones, Lois Berry, S. Binnie, S. Bird, L. Braaten, M. Buhr, I. Busch-Vishniac,
K. Chad, H. Christensen, E. Cole, B. Cram, A. Danyliw, D. Docken, T. Downey, A. Duke, D. Dutchak,
B. Fairbairn, S. Finley, P. Flaten, R. Forbes, S. Fortugno, G. Fowler,
H. Franklin, D. Frondall, R. Fyfe, K. Gerwing, N. Glover, S. Haines, M. Hande, S. Harpell, D. Hill, J.
Hoback , B. Hollick, L. Isinger, R. Isinger, J. Jonsson, R. Kies, G. Kipouros,
A. Kopp-McKay, R. Krismer, K. Ladd, D. Lanigan, A. Lavoie, D. LeBlanc, H. Magotiaux, A. March, S.
Martin, G. McCaffrey, P. McDougall, T. McLeod, R. McPherson, R. Michalenko, J. Miller, J. Nicol, E.
Olfert, O. Panchuk, M. Pawelke (for D. Uglem), V. Pezer, K. Prisciak, N. Prokopchuk, J. Robertson,
C. Rodgers, K. Rooney, C. Stevenson, P. Stoicheff, P. Stroh, M. Stumborg, K. Sutherland,
L. Swystun, L. Thibodeau, C. Toye, Izabela Vlahu (for E. Ohiozebau), J. Walters, J. Wells, B.
Greene (for A. Whittles), J. Wickenhauser, R. Wiens, J. Wood, Elizabeth Williamson (secretary).
Regrets: S. Anand, L. Calvert, J. Crawford, D. Freeman, T. Gerardin, J. Halmo, S. Heidl,
E. Korsberg, M. Loewen, J. Martini, P.McKercher, F. Myers, J. Pulfer.
Absent: M. Derdall. L. Greenberg, D. Hannah, R. Harasymchuk, J. Huyghebaert, D. Mihalicz, T.
Molloy, R. Norris, K. Ogilvie, L. Qualtiere, R. Regnier, R. Schriml, D. Taras, T. Turner.
Guests: Max FineDay, Gordon DesBrisay, Judy Buzowetsky, Jordan Sherbino.
1.
Opening remarks
The chair welcomed everyone and introductions were made by all of the senators
present.
2.
Adoption of the agenda
The chair asked for a motion to adopt the agenda.
KRISMER/PEZER: That the agenda be adopted as circulated.
CARRIED
3.
Minutes of the meeting of April 20, 2013
The chair invited consideration of the minutes of the April 20, 2013 meeting.
FLATEN/FINDLEY: That the minutes of the meeting of April 20, 2013 be approved.
CARRIED
4.
Business from the minutes
There was no business arising from the minutes.
1
Senate Minutes
5.
-2-
October 19, 2013
President’s report
President Busch-Vishniac advised that the amendments to The University of
Saskatchewan Act, 1995 are on the Fall legislative agenda. The key issue is respecting
the tricameral nature of the Board of Governors by revising the Act so that both the
Senate appointments to the Board can serve three consecutive terms, as is currently
available for the Order-in-Council appointments.
The president provided an update on the College of Medicine accreditation process.
The college faculty and University Council have approved changes in the college
structure to allow the university to focus on its job of training, education and discovery,
while the health regions take responsibility for clinical funding for health care. The
president advised that further information will be provided on the website
http://www.medicine.usask.ca/renewal/index.html.
Ivan Muzychka, associate vice-president communications, was invited to speak to the
President’s Report 2013, a new document being produced by the university.
Mr. Muzychka advised that the university has published an annual financial report for many
years; improvements have been made to that document and it will continue to be
published. However, administration and the Board of Governors thought the university
needed another document to give narrative highlights of key successes every year and
provide a snapshot of either financial or statistical data. Senators will receive a copy of
the President’s Report in the mail and can request more if desired. Copies of the report
will also be sent to federal political representatives and others. Some of the content will
be used as advertisements highlighting the successes around the university. The
approach has been fun and creative to make the document more accessible.
Mr. Muzychka advised that the production cost will be between $8-10 per book. He noted
and thanked the individuals involved in the project. http://www.usask.ca/presidentsreport/
6.
Report on undergraduate student activities
Max FineDay, president of the USSU, reported on the activities of the USSU and
undergraduates. He noted the four vice-president positions and the work they have
been focusing on. Mr. FineDay explained the open textbook project he was working on
and noted that British Columbia is working on creating 40 open textbooks for the 40
most highly enrolled courses in the province. He believed this was a better way to
distribute knowledge less expensively to students. He advised that the USSU has a
petition in support of the project and he would appreciate any support the senators
would like to give.
7.
Report on graduate student activities
Izabel Vlahu, vice-president academic of the Graduate Students’ Association (GSA), reported on
the activities of the GSA. She highlighted the GSA congress planned for March 6-8, 2014 which
will include a broad approach to student research. The GSA will be asking for sponsorship
support for this event. The GSA is also organizing a recognition and awards gala on March 8th.
This fall the GSA hosted an orientation session in the bowl with approximately 50% of the
graduate students attending. Other services being provided by the GSA include need-based
bursaries, increases in the benefits under the health and dental plan, travel grants for students
attending conferences, presentations with the student employment and career centre on finding
2
Senate Minutes
-3-
October 19, 2013
employment, and a loan program. Graduate students are receiving the student bus pass this
year and will vote in March on whether to continue this benefit. Ms. Vlahu concluded with the
note that the GSA is working on encouraging the university to establish an ombudsman office,
improving residence conditions, and increasing the number of graduate students in the
provincial government graduate retention program.
A senator asked whether the GSA has recommended or proposed any changes to the academic
integrity policy at the university as she was told that the university does not have a policy that
aligns with the top universities. In response, Ms. Vlahu reported that over the last year the GSA
had provided comments on drafts of the Responsible Conduct of Research Policy and that this
policy was in alignment with tri-agency requirements. Ms. Vlahu also noted that she has
referred students to the Research Ethics Office and they have received assistance.
Dr. Karen Chad, vice-president research, informed Senate that the university‘s Responsible
Conduct of Research Policy aligns with national guidelines and standards. It not only stipulates
principles but also outlines process and a timeline in which matters need to be resolved. This
policy was approved by University Council in June 2013, to replace the university’s previous
research integrity policy.
8.
Report on non-academic student misconduct cases for 2012/13
Elizabeth Williamson, university secretary, presented her report noting between July 1, 2012
and June 30, 2013 there were a total of 10 formal complaints of student non-academic
misconduct. One was resolved through an alternative dispute resolution process, one resulted
in a presidential suspension, and eight went to formal hearings of a Senate hearing board. Ms.
Williamson noted the various outcomes from the eight cases.
9.
Senate committee reports
9.1
Executive Committee - Nomination procedures for Senate committee
members
President Busch-Vishniac reported on behalf of the executive committee on the bylaw
change proposed at the Spring Senate meeting to clarify that when nominations are
made, it is possible to receive nominations from the floor. At that time implementation
of the bylaws was deferred until Senate approved procedures to address nominations
from the floor. The president noted that proposed procedures were included in the
materials, they were adapted from Kerr and King’s Procedures for Meetings and
Organizations, and they permit nominations from the floor. In the case when
nominations are announced in advance and there are additional nominations from the
floor, these positions will be voted on by all members of Senate within four weeks of the
Senate meeting. In response to a senator’s question, it was confirmed that this vote
would be conducted in electronic format similar to senator elections.
HAINES/ALEXANDER: That Senate approve the procedures for nominations to
Senate standing committees as provided by Senate Executive Committee for the
Senate meeting of October 19, 2013.
CARRIED
3
Senate Minutes
9.2
-4-
October 19, 2013
Executive Committee — Confirmation of approval of bylaw amendments
President Busch-Vishniac advised that at the last Senate meeting the Senate had agreed
in principle to accept the amendments to the bylaws brought forward and now
recommended that the Senate vote to confirm approval of the bylaw amendments. A
senator asked whether one of the amendments to the bylaws was to remove student
representation from non-academic misconduct hearing boards. The university
secretary advised that there are regulations approved by Senate that govern the nonacademic misconduct hearing and appeal process, and they do include the requirement
for a student representative on the hearing boards.
ISINGER/KRISMER: That as Senate has now approved the Procedures for
Nominations to Senate Standing Committees, Senate confirms approval of the
Senate Bylaws amendments approved in principle at the Senate meeting of April
20, 2013.
CARRIED
9.3
Notice of Motion: Executive Committee - Recommendation for
amendment to Senate district boundaries for Districts 10 and 11
President Busch-Vishniac advised that the senate executive committee is bringing
forward a notice of motion and welcomes discussion on amending the district
boundaries for Districts 10 and 11. Currently District 11 includes Prince Albert and a
large rural area that extends into Northern Saskatchewan combining a rural and urban
riding. The proposed change would combine the current District 10 with the northern
portion of District 11 to create a rural riding; Prince Albert and its surrounding area
would become a stand-alone district. The incumbents will not be affected as they
currently live in the proposed districts. It is recommended that the change be made for
elections in 2015 for the proposed new District 10 and in 2016 for the proposed new
District 11.
A senator asked whether the committee has considered basing the district boundaries
on something other than postal codes. Ms. Williamson advised that the district
boundaries continue to be based on postal codes as it allows the university to sort
alumni addresses in the most efficient and effective manner.
9.4
Nominations Committee Report
- Education committee membership
- Senate member on review committee for vice-president research
Ann March, chair of the committee, provided the report. She informed Senate that at the
April Senate meeting some of the student committee members were not yet named. She
advised that Heather Franklin is the student member on the executive committee,
Ehimai Ohiozebau is the student member on the honorary degrees committee and Justin
Wood is the student member on the nominations committee.
Ms. March explained to Senate that the Senate education committee has been created
through amendments to the bylaws that have just been confirmed at this meeting. The
nominations committee has put forward a slate of members so the education committee
can begin immediately. Its first term will be shorter as it will end in April to allow
4
Senate Minutes
-5-
October 19, 2013
appointments for the next year to be made in Spring and align the appointments to the
education committee with the other Senate standing committees.
The following nominations were made to the education committee:
 two ex-officio senators – Blaine Favel and Sanjeev Anand;
 two appointed senators – Deborah Agema and David Dutchak;
 two elected senators – Lenore Swystun and Russ McPherson; and
 one student senator – Adam Duke.
Ms. March noted that all of the candidates have agreed to serve.
The following nomination was made to the review committee for vice-president
research:
 Vera Pezer
Ms. March noted that Dr. Pezer has agreed to serve.
FLATEN/ALEXANDER: That Senate approve the appointments to the Senate
Education Committee (for terms ending April 2014) and the appointment to the
review committee for Vice-President Research, as recommended by the Senate
Nominations Committee.
CARRIED
10.
University Council
10.1
Disestablishment of Open Studies
Gordon DesBrisay, associate dean of students, College of Arts and Science and designated
dean of Open Studies presented this item to Senate. He explained that Open Studies was
not serving its purpose and it was determined that the students in Open Studies would be
better served in a different manner. The disestablishment is a revenue neutral move
made on pedagogical grounds. The two cohorts served by Open Studies are part-time
students and those students required to discontinue (RTD) from other colleges. Open
Studies has approximately 500 students down from 2,000 ten years ago as the students
have been streamed to colleges where they are better served. Dr. DesBrisay advised that
the colleges have agreed to identify earlier and take better care of students that are on
probation and failing to meet progression standards of their college.
The motion was moved and seconded, followed by a number of questions. A senator
asked whether this will disadvantage the Aboriginal or international student cohorts. Dr.
DesBrisay advised that this will not disadvantage either group, however, the one cohort
that is over-represented in the college are those students with disabilities and he believed
that being in their original college allows the colleges to better address these students
directly and provide support. He informed Senate that the College of Arts and Science will
receive the students currently in Open Studies and funding has been provided to hire an
additional person to help address this group. He also explained that there are early
warning systems now coming online which should help colleges earlier identify those
students who are in academic peril.
A senator asked whether students currently enrolled in Open Studies were consulted. Dr.
DesBrisay advised that consultations were carried out with the student forum, on which
5
Senate Minutes
-6-
October 19, 2013
USSU representatives and representatives from various student bodies sit. There are also
Open Studies students on the USSU and the academic vice-president of the USSU was
consulted. Dr. DesBrisay advised that one of the difficulties about Open Studies is that it
is a disparate group and therefore it is difficult to address these students collectively.
Although there was no forum to speak to these students specifically, there has been no
negative feedback. Dr. DesBrisay confirmed that the students currently in Open Studies
know that the college is being disestablished.
A senator asked for a description of the better supports in place to address this change.
Dr. DesBrisay advised that Disability Services for Students liaises with colleges and all
colleges have academic advising units. Direct entry colleges have agreed to help the Open
Studies cohorts. All of the colleges have, to various degrees, integrated academic advising
that has been key to student retention. Also the original position assigned to Open
Studies has been reassigned to the College of Arts and Science.
A senator commented that Dr. DesBrisay noted only a quarter of the students in the Open
Studies college make it back into one of the other colleges and asked how this compares
to schools without these programs. Dr. DesBrisay advised that he was unaware of
percentages elsewhere and that it would be difficult to have comparatives. What is
known is that when students come back after they have left the university they do as well
or better than those students who stay.
A senator noted that he is encouraged that we have a home for explorer students but was
concerned about students who are required to discontinue as he was one of those
students. At the time he was able to move into the College of Arts and Science and ended
up finishing with two degrees and was elected to USSU positions. He encouraged deans to
make sure that advising services are made available to students in similar situations.
Dr. DesBrisay reported the goal is to help students succeed. For some students, a year
away from their studies is appropriate so that they do not incur further failures and
student debt, with little chance of success. When these students are ready to return,
advisors are available to help them develop a plan for academic success.
DUTCHAK/STUMBORG: That Senate confirm Council’s decision that the existing
model for Open Studies be discontinued, effective January 1, 2014, and that the
Open Studies Faculty Council be dissolved as of May 1, 2014.
CARRIED, FIVE OPPOSED
10.2
Revised Admission Requirements for Post-Degree Bachelor of Science in
Nursing
Lois Berry, acting dean, College of Nursing, advised that she was seeking the Senate’s
confirmation of Council’s decision that the admission requirements for the new postdegree bachelor of nursing program require courses in Microbiology, Anatomy,
Physiology and Native Studies prior to entrance. Dr. Berry advised that with the phaseout of the Nursing Education Program of Saskatchewan, the college would like to have a
new post-degree program that reduces the number of credit units required and
reconfigures the sequence of courses so that the degree can be completed in two calendar
years for students who have a previous degree. She did not anticipate that this would
6
Senate Minutes
-7-
October 19, 2013
require any significant change for those offering the courses, as the vast majority of
students applying already have these classes. However, approval of the decision would
entrench the courses in the admission prerequisites, thereby making them a requirement
for all students seeking entry. .
ALBRITTON/BIRD: That Senate confirms Council’s decision that the admission
requirements for the Post-Degree Bachelor of Nursing program be revised to
require that the courses in Microbiology, Anatomy, Physiology and Native
Studies be completed before entrance.
CARRIED
There were no questions or comments.
11.
Presentations
11.1
Distributed Learning Strategy Action Plan
Patti McDougall, vice-provost teaching and learning, presented on the distributed
learning strategy noting that the goal is to continue to expand the presence and the
impact of the university throughout the province and beyond. Distributed learning is
generally overseen by the colleges. The university is committed to making university
courses available to under-represented populations in the province and although this is
not exclusively about Aboriginal people of the North, they are definitely affected. Dr.
McDougall’s presentation is attached as Appendix A.
Following the presentation there were a number of questions. A senator asked whether
the university was marketing these programs in ways other than through regional
colleges, such as through high schools. Dr. McDougall advised that the university does
market through the high schools and regional colleges, but may not market these
distributed learning opportunities as strongly as it should.
A senator noted that students run into difficulties and are required to discontinue not
only because of lifestyle but also due to distraction challenges and other reasons and
wondered whether providing distributed learning was another way to address the RTD
cohort by allowing them to remain in their communities. Dr. McDougall commented that
this would help the student whose success is better served by living in the home
community.
Dr. Berry, acting dean of nursing, noted that the Nursing college is actively involved with
offering its undergraduate degree in five areas of the province, soon to be six areas. She
acknowledged the work done by university administration in distributed learning as it
has been a very positive experience for the College of Nursing. She also noted that the
college works with regional colleges and also health regions. It is mutually beneficial to
provide programs in communities and enrol students who would not be able to
participate otherwise. This also contributes to the communities leveraging all kinds of
synergies in the communities. She noted that being involved with these communities and
bringing education into the communities has been the most rewarding part of her
education career.
7
Senate Minutes
-8-
October 19, 2013
A senator commented that being able to stay in their own communities helps not only
mature and independent students, but also those who are not well-prepared through the
secondary school system and may need more support. She asked whether people could
enter any time of the year and go at their own rate. Dr. McDougall indicated on-line
courses will continue to operate on the same schedule as the existing university calendar,
which is also used by regional colleges. The university does not have the flexibility in its
registration system to allow students to start courses at any time.
A senator asked about the cost to the students of the distributed learning programs. Dr.
McDougall advised that students in these programs pay the same tuition rates as a
student enrolled on campus.
11.2
Operating Budget Adjustments and TransformUS
Greg Fowler, vice-president finance and resources, presented on the operating budget
and TransformUS. At the April Senate meeting he and Pauline Melis provided an
operating budget adjustment update and he indicated that today he and Dr. McDougall
would address the Canadian funding landscape, the budget process so far, and work being
done this year, particularly the TransformUS prioritization initiative.
The university has projected a future gap between what will be required in funding and
what it expects to receive from the provincial grant. At the start of 2012/13 the
university requested a 5.8% increase over the previous year and estimated continued
growth in grant requests of 4-5% annually. The university received an increase of 2.1%
in 2012/13, with an expectation of future increases of 2%. As a result, the university
immediately faced a shortfall for 2012/13 as well as a projected shortfall of $44 million
by 2016. As a result, the university began work on dealing with the projected budget
deficit.
Mr. Fowler noted that the university is a member of the U15 which consists of the top
research intensive universities in Canada. He noted the specific increases or decreases in
grants for the U15 universities, indicating that all U15 universities are facing much lower
funding than anticipated. .
Dr. McDougall spoke to what other universities are doing to address their deficits. These
include: increases in tuition fees; across the board budget cuts; wage freezes or hiring
freezes; reduced work forces; and changing budget systems and models.
Mr. Fowler advised that action taken by the university in 2012/13 has already reduced
more than half of the projected budget deficit, which has been good progress, but further
action is required.
Dr. McDougall spoke to the seven strategy areas which the university is undertaking on
budget adjustments, some of which are already well underway. These include workforce
planning; maximizing the value of university spending; and the TransformUS
prioritization project. She noted that senators could see the website at
www.usask.ca/finances/ for more information.
Dr. McDougall listed the goals for 2013/14 including: receiving recommendations from
the TransformUS task forces and making decisions based on these recommendations;
workforce planning continuing as an ongoing process guided by such things as
8
Senate Minutes
-9-
October 19, 2013
TransformUS; pilot testing of the travel and expense online tool; initiating the shared
services project, building on earlier work of increasing collaboration between academic
and non-academic units; renewing principles for compensation to guide decision-making;
implementing space rental review recommendations; and developing a sustainable
budgeting process.
Regarding TransformUS, it was explained that this is a program prioritization review of
all academic and administrative programs. The university is looking for $20-25M in
permanent savings (approximately 5% of the total operating budget). Also $5M will be
re-allocated to top priority programs. The changes will result in a stronger university
that is more focused, more accountable and ultimately more successful in fulfilling its
mission of teaching and research and its priorities such as research intensity and
Aboriginal engagement. There is a task force looking at academic programs and another
task force looking at support services by program. Both have been asked to prioritize all
of the programs into the following five equal quintiles by portion of operation budget:
candidate for enhanced resourcing; maintain with current resourcing; retain with
reduced resourcing; reconfigure for efficiency/effectiveness; and candidate for phase out,
subject to further review.
The TransformUS 2013-14 timeline was illustrated to Senate and it was noted that the
university is currently in the task force prioritization phase. Following receipt of the task
force reports, the university will follow a three-phase process of consultation and
feedback, analysis and implementation, and decisions and action. The task force reports
will be released on December 9th, assuming the reports are received by the president on
their November 30th deadline. There will be no changes to the reports between the time
of their submission to the president and their public release a week later, but this time
allows the president an opportunity to read the reports and prepare to respond.
Following the release of the reports, the work of the task forces will be complete and the
university will move into the consultation and feedback phase. Town halls will be held;
University Council and its committees, deans, associate vice-presidents and department
heads will also be invited to comment on the reports. There will also be an opportunity
for anyone to submit comments online at www.transformus.usask.ca, and senators are
strongly encouraged to actively participate through the website. Dr. McDougall noted the
feedback phase will close January 31st and that all feedback will be taken into
consideration.
Thereafter the implementation plan will be developed and the plan is that it will be
shared in late April. The university wants to have a coordinated decision model across
units and governing bodies with decisions being made at a variety of levels. All of the
decisions will follow governance process and the processes outlined in The University of
Saskatchewan Act, 1995.
Senate was informed that the decision makers will include deans, executive directors and
unit leaders, the provost’s committee on integrate planning (PCIP), the Board of
Governors, the University Council and Senate. Senate has the role of confirming a number
of actions presented by Council based on The University of Saskatchewan Act, 1995. The
key dates were reiterated concluding that implementation is planned to begin May 1st,
2014.
9
Senate Minutes
- 10 -
October 19, 2013
Vice-president Fowler advised that the changes will be transformative and will mean that
our university will look different in 2016 than it does now. By prioritizing based on the
mandate of teaching and research, and strengthening focus on the areas identified as
most important, the university will become an even better university. By 2016 the
university will be: sustainable, financially and otherwise; resource aware; innovative; and
research intensive. This will better position the university to meet its integrated planning
commitments including: strengthening academic programs and research intensity,
including a restructured College of Medicine; continuing to lead the nation in Aboriginal
education and knowledge; and building a diverse and inclusive campus community.
A senator noted that the university is attempting to increase revenues and decrease
expenses and then asked about Cameco’s unpaid taxes to the federal government. Vicepresident Fowler advised that every year the university presents its operating budget
forecast to the provincial government. He also noted that it would not be for the
university to determine how the government collects its taxes.
The senator then asked whether the university has considered a 10% cut in salaries
across the board. Vice-president Fowler advised that the university’s compensation
model is based on market comparisons so it has not considered cuts in such a manner;
however, within its principles the university does have the ability to control growth of
compensation and that is being considered.
11.3
Aboriginal Engagement Activity
Chancellor and chair of Senate Blaine Favel took the opportunity as the first Aboriginal
chancellor to teach Senate the Cree phrase for “hello friend” – “tensi niji”.
Candace Wasacase-Lafferty, Director First Nations and Metis Engagement, and Joan
Greyeyes, Special Advisor on Aboriginal Initiatives, spoke to the work being done on
Aboriginal engagement. They noted that the presentation does not include a complete list
of all Aboriginal engagement activities on campus but does provide an overview. The
presentation is attached to these minutes as Appendix B.
A video on Aboriginal symbols identified for the university was shown to Senate and then
Ms. Wasacase-Lafferty and Ms. Greyeyes thanked the elders that helped with the
Aboriginal symbols initiative.
The meeting was recessed at 12:10 p.m. for lunch and reconvened at 1:05 p.m.
12.
Discussion on Vision 2025: From Spirit to Action
President Busch-Vishniac explained the process followed in drafting the Vision 2025: From
Spirit to Action document. The university is known for its ability for integrated planning and
the university is implementing its third integrated plan. The university plans in four- year
periods but the president advised that she wants to identify where the university will be going
in 10-20 years, and this longer-term vision informs the Vision document. The current draft has
been through a number of iterations and will be reviewed by the university’s three governing
bodies—Senate, the Board, and University Council–in October. Following this consultation
phase, she will adapt the Vision document based on the responses and then submit the
document to Senate, University Council and the Board of Governors for endorsement in Spring
2014.
10
Senate Minutes
- 11 -
October 19, 2013
The president noted that prior to any discussion at Senate she wanted to discuss one paragraph
that has already received a number of comments and requires rewriting as it is being
interpreted in a manner not intended. The paragraph reads,
“We have a special role to play in partnership with Aboriginal communities in the
province. Current approaches to the challenges faced by Aboriginal peoples often
prompt us to create special programs for Aboriginal learners or employees. In the long
run, we would strongly prefer to create an atmosphere in which, rather than two
programs to achieve each goal – one for non-Aboriginal peoples and one for Aboriginal
peoples – we are able to create a single program that allows everyone to flourish.”
The president noted that this is being interpreted as a desire to discontinue the Indian Teachers
Education Program (ITEP) and that is not what was intended.
The president explained that since graduating from high school in early 1970’s she’s been a
minority in her academic pursuits of Physics, Math and Mechanical Engineering. When looking
over the 30-year time period she can see progress made for women entering science fields and
sees that we are getting to the end stage. However, when looking at the province of
Saskatchewan she sees this is the province with the highest population self-identifying as
Aboriginal and it will not be long before a majority of the population self-identifies as
Aboriginal. What she does not know is the end state that is wanted, and how the province will
get there. It is hard to know how to move to achieve the end state when the end state is
unknown. The end state may be to retain separate education opportunities or perhaps it is for
the languages courses at the university to be Cree, Ojibway and Dene. The president advised
that the university thinks it is in a good position to have that discussion and that is what this
paragraph was attempting to do.
The president advised that Senate’s comments are extremely valued and changes will be made
based on responses received through today’s discussion groups as well as through comments
received in any other manner. It was noted that there will be a town hall on October 30th about
the Vision document that will be live-streamed as well as more opportunities for discussion in
the spring.
The Senate was divided into six groups, with each group looking at a different section of the
Vision document. All of the groups met for 25 minutes and considered:
1. What did you find really interesting? Is there anything you would recommend absolutely
remain or be further emphasized?
2. What did you find troublesome? Is there anything you would recommend absolutely be
reworked or even removed?
3. Is there anything significantly missing?
4. If you could provide only one piece of advice as we move forward with consultation what
would it be?
A spokesperson from each group then reported back to Senate on the groups’ discussions:
11
Senate Minutes
- 12 -
October 19, 2013
Group 1 – Mission and Vision
What did you find interesting or troublesome? Regarding the mission, the group recommended
rewording the last line of the Mission, as the word “drive” was troublesome. The university
should not want to tie itself to something it cannot control, such as the provincial economy. It
was recommended that “enhance” might be a better word.
Regarding the vision, because there could be confusion with the term “Aboriginal communities”
as it may be interpreted as a community; it was recommended that “Aboriginal peoples” would
be more inclusive overall. The vision should be focused on the long term.
Is there anything significantly missing? Regarding the mission, it was noted that “belongs to the
people of Saskatchewan” was no longer in the mission, and some in the group found this good
and others did not. In the past students found it helpful in holding administration accountable.
It was also noted that there was no direct expression of concern with social issues or social
justice matters in the mission statement.
Group 2 - Values
What did you find really interesting? The value “courage” is a very proactive word, courage is
needed to do things differently and move forward. The “academic freedom” value distinguishes
these values as university values and the group recommended moving this value from last in
the list to first as it is compelling.
What did you find troublesome? The value “courage” jumped off the page as strange and was
seen as emotional rather than business language. “Prairie resourcefulness” is not common
language, and although the group agreed with it in spirit they thought it was colloquial and
recommended changing it to tie into serving the world. The group questioned how “deep
understanding of the land and place” is a value statement. They noted redundancy between
“prairie resourcefulness” and “deep understanding of the land and place” and wondered if they
should be tied together, and recommended tying this to visual imagery for sharing. They noted
that “appreciation” and “desire” are not action words and thought more commitment language
should be used. The group saw values as motherhood statements and recommended linking
the values to performance and service to create something aspirational.
What’s missing? There was no reference that the university is partnership and co-operation
friendly with other universities, both nationally and provincially. “Inclusivity” and “leadership”
were referenced throughout the narrative but not in the values. Missing words are: “people”
and “students”. The group noted that a fundamental commitment to knowledge building was
not in the values, but it was also raised that this may be better referenced in the mission. The
values lack action words, and should denote action.
Feedback: It was thought that the values should be in a paragraph rather than point form, to be
consistent with the rest of the document. The group thought it is a strong and engaging
document, and recommended the strong and compelling language come first such as academic
freedom which is seen as forward looking.
12
Senate Minutes
- 13 -
October 19, 2013
Group 3 – Our place in the post-secondary landscape
What did you find really interesting? In one of the listed key principles that will guide our future,
it states that the university recognizes career preparation as part of our mandate but that our
role is to help students succeed.
What did you find troublesome? The third listed key principle referring to not gratuitously
duplicating research activities from elsewhere in the province should be reworded as it is open
to misinterpretation. Regarding the tenth listed key principle on entrepreneurial thinking and
businesses related to learning and discovery missions, it was noted that this may conflict with s.
64 of The University of Saskatchewan Act, 1995, that states unless authorized by Board of
Governors, no person shall hold out that the university has approved a commercial process,
thing, enterprise or undertaking. The group questioned the university running businesses and
was concerned with the commercialization impact, seeing that the university is investing in
industry-based interests and getting into problems of ownership and patenting of life forms.
Is there anything significantly missing? This group thought that the role of the university is to
help students achieve their fullest potential and that its wants graduates of the university to
make a difference in the world, so this should be emphasized. Regarding partnerships, the
group thought this section was missing the idea of the community. When focusing on students
and helping them achieve their potential they go back into the community and become primary
promoters of the university, so it is a cycle.
Group 4 – Where do we want to leave our mark?
What did you find really interesting? This group questioned making specific references to
initiatives in this section as they may not endure in the long term (i.e. reference to two national
science facilities – will there be more or fewer; does this become a dated document?). If there is
a continued desire to include this type of reference, recommended using the phrase, “such as
two national science facilities”. The group discussed the current debate on research and how
the university will be influenced by outside pressures on research; is the university identified
by who has the money; and how does this impact academic freedom.
What did you find troublesome? The group was concerned that there is not enough emphasis on
learning and too much emphasis on corporatization. There should be a balance between the
corporate agenda and the university. The group discussed the notion that the university is
involved in increasing the value of community versus being corporately driven. The group
discussed how the identity of the university seems to be rolled into that of Innovation Place,
which is recognized externally as a positive example of meaningful partnerships. These
partnerships are viewed as more than business and technology, as they marry the academic
community with intellectual property and business initiatives. The group suggested that the
university should continue the beauty of its campus, buildings and landscape. The group
questioned what “model for Aboriginal needs” means, and recommended deleting “needs” and
changing the language to talk about “strengths” or “talents”.
Is there anything significantly missing? It was felt that there should be more of a focus on
education as a lasting legacy and suggested strengthening the mission statement in this area. It
was also recommended that the vision include what will make the university unique by 2025
from the perspective of student experience and learning.
13
Senate Minutes
- 14 -
October 19, 2013
If you could provide only one piece of advice what would it be? The group recommended
strengthening the reference to alumni contributions and fostering a life-long relationship so as
to have more integration of alumni by 2025.
Group 5 – What is our sense of place?
What did you find really interesting? The idea of one common program for all students was
interesting.
What should be emphasized? The document should emphasize making the university more
attractive to Saskatchewan’s top students. The reference to the university enabling students to
find jobs in the province should be emphasized more, as well as graduate retention in
Saskatchewan. Consider community as a sense of place, as ‘community’ or ‘sense of home’ is
important in defining the sense of place. Include a reference to history, as it is important in
defining sense of place. Perhaps the document could emphasize the university’s environment,
particularly agricultural environment and also that Saskatchewan has the cleanest water and
air anywhere.
What should be clarified? The group suggested that the document define the university’s
participation and involvement in professional and social society; and whether it needs to be
increased or maintained.
What should be expanded? The group recommended expanding on whether the sense of place
should be just provincial or more geographically distinctive (i.e. great plains of North America,
circumpolar north). It is important to leverage off of the sense of place, such as a connection
with Aboriginal peoples, environment, and water. The document needs to develop this more as
a contextual section about “Our Sense of Place”, including the sense of community and sense of
home. The document should focus on leadership in education within this context and as
reflected in historical indigenous roots.
Group 6 – How do we create and maintain the environment that enables us to reach our
goals?
What did you find interesting? This group found the idea of key performance indicators
interesting and wondered what model would be used to determine them. The group suggested
they have to be emphasized as broader social indicators (such as staffing structures need to be
flexible). The key performance indicators link to how the university resonates in the community
and this needs to be part of the emphasis. Long-term sustainability and predictable funding are
important, along with growth and maintaining a degree of independence.
What did you find troublesome? The university’s funding needs to be more stable. It tends to
leap from government to government and to particular priorities, instead of taking a long
sustained look. Technology is not clearly part of the university’s programs, and the document
does not deal with advances of off-campus distance education, distributed learning, and the like.
The university needs to have stronger dialogue with external sources regarding directed
funding.
What is missing? Regarding funding, 70% of our funding is from the government, and it was felt
that the role of trustee and endowment funds was missing. They are not part of the
Saskatchewan culture, but should be examined through alumni, benefactors, and other
methods. The roles of alumni and students are missing in the social directives and indicators. As
14
Senate Minutes
- 15 -
October 19, 2013
the university grows larger, the issue of creating the university culture is more difficult, as there
is not always a tie across campus between colleges (other than through the Huskies). There is a
need to attract other stakeholders to the university. The group suggested including a statement
of community as being a larger environment, so the university has the whole community
supporting and aware of what is being done at the university.
What advice would you provide? The group suggested there should be much more inclusion of
students in the vision document. Students are ambassadors of the university and they must be
part of this document. Because the university has the best campus, often it does not spread
itself out into the community or bring the community in as much as it could. The university
should have more interdisciplinary work. The group recommends capitalizing on the sense of
place.
13.
Other Business
Heather Magotiaux, vice-president advancement and community engagement, reported on the
meeting of October 18 with district senators to talk about the regional advisory councils (RACs).
RACs were created approximately ten years ago to allow senators to connect with their
communities on university affairs. At the meeting, feedback was sought on continuing
operation of these councils. It was learned that:







14.
RACs are too rigid and would be better served with a less formal structure;
Senators want to take advantage of communities being visited by representatives from
the university, such as during the president’s tour and the senators would rather tradeoff formality of RACs for more president tours and also meetings with others such as
deans;
Senators are able to call on other colleagues in their community on special issues;
The senators encouraged the university to find ways to use social media to address its
large and dispersed districts;
District senators want more opportunities to meet with one another to work on issues
such as distributed learning;
Briefing notes could be provided on what is happening at the university; also knowing
more about what is happening at the university, such as through the delivery of news
stories to them would be beneficial; and
Senators want to be effective ambassadors for the university and want to receive
training to learn more about how to do that.
Question Period
A senator noted that if meetings are held for districts the members-at-large in the region could
be invited as well, and she would appreciate such contact.
A senator noted that Senate receives enrolment data annually, and it was not in the materials
today and asked to have year-over-year figures and graduation rates at future meetings.
A senator commented that in the minutes of the last meeting it had been stated that
Saskatchewan Archives will be charged for their space on campus and he noted that this has led
to speculation that the Provincial Archives will be asked to leave. He asked vice-president
Fowler to respond and provide an update on these discussions. Mr. Fowler reported that he has
met with Provincial Archives and the discussion has been about paying for their occupancy
15
Senate Minutes
- 16 -
October 19, 2013
costs, not increased rent, beginning May 1, 2015. Provincial Archives is preparing a report that
is going to their Board this fall and thereafter the discussion will continue. The senator asked
what the university’s commitment is to having Provincial Archives on campus. Mr. Fowler
advised that he will hear the report from Provincial Archives and then take it back to the
university Board if there is a request for the university to subsidize the space. He noted that the
space will need to be updated and that will have to be determined.
A senator asked whether Senate’s membership committee will be inviting the Métis Nation to
rejoin the Senate. She also asked whether the university was accepting the advice of the
Graduate Students’ Association in creating an ombudsperson’s office for students and if so
when and if not, why not. Thirdly she asked about the plans for the Kenderdine Campus at
Emma Lake.
The president responded noting that the Senate membership is governed by rules and
regulations. The Senate did have a question from the Métis Nation regarding their membership
and they were advised that the Senate would welcome them rejoining and they just have to
inform the Senate that they are interested. Regarding the ombudsperson the university is still
in discussion with the GSA and others across campus and looking at what other universities are
doing. At this time of expense analysis, this would be a new office with an ombudsperson and
staff so the university does not know whether it will go forward. It has been a high agenda item
for graduate students and will continue to be so. Dr. McDougall responded to the question
regarding Kenderdine Campus and advised that she was co-heading a project to look at how the
university might be able to share in the running of the Kenderdine campus to meet the needs of
interested groups.
A senator asked for more information regarding the re-vote that recently occurred in the senate
elections for District 12. The university secretary said she would look into it further and
provide further information about the districts affected.
A senator noted that the Regional Psychiatric Centre is located on land owned by the university
and noted that it functions as a prison more than a hospital. He expressed that he found it
deeply offensive as a student as the centre operates as a prison and there can be a 30-day
period of segregation, even though the United Nations has defined over 15 days of segregation
to be viewed as torture. The president replied noting that the university does not own the
Regional Psychiatric Centre but it is located on property that the university owns. The centre is
under the direction of Corrections Canada. The university’s relationship involves training of
medical students in psychiatry, training of nursing students, and research in this facility.
A senator asked for an explanation on the flagship partnership strategy with China as
referenced in the president’s written report to Senate. The president replied that as an
institution the university seeks to be more visible internationally in China and many other
countries. China has been identified as a key country to collaborate with internationally. The
president noted that more information can be provided through the office of the vice-president
research.
The senator also asked a question regarding the president’s vision statement, asking what steps
is the university taking to develop the relationship with the provincial government to secure a
multi-year funding agreement. Vice-president Fowler replied that university representatives
meet with the Ministry of Advanced Education regularly and this is part of the discussions. The
university will meet with them next year as well and that is part of the agenda.
16
Senate Minutes
15.
- 17 -
October 19, 2013
Dates of Convocations and future Senate meetings
Fall Convocation 2013: Saturday, October 26, 2013
Chancellor Installation at morning ceremony
Honorary degrees awarded at afternoon ceremony
- Anne Doig, Doctor of Laws
- Edith Wiens, Doctor of Letters
Spring Senate meeting 2014: Saturday, April 26, 2014
Spring Convocation 2014: June 3-6, 2014
WELLS/SWYSTUN: Motion for adjournment at 2:30 p.m.
17
AGENDA ITEM: 5.1
University of Saskatchewan
Vision 2025: From Spirit to Action
Our Mission
To excel in learning and discovery, and the integration, application and preservation of knowledge in
order to shape the province of Saskatchewan, promote social, policy and cultural innovation and enable
students and graduates to become active and responsible global citizens.
Our Vision
To be recognized among the most distinguished research-intensive universities in North America, and
world-leading in targeted areas of education and research, knowing that we serve Saskatchewan best by
helping to solve global challenges that have particular relevance to our region and by striving to lead the
nation in Aboriginal post-secondary education initiatives that meet community needs.
Our Values
Our values, inspired by our history and place, are critical to achieving our vision. They will guide us as we
move from spirit to action.
 We prize and encourage creativity, innovation, critical thinking and courage:
We value creative, innovative and critical thinking that advances knowledge within and across
disciplines, and have the courage to challenge preconceived notions.
 We honour our sense of our land and our place:
We value our strong sense of community, our culture of collaboration, and our connections to the
land.
 We are proud of our prairie and northern resourcefulness and respect our history of achievement
through perseverance and vision.
We value our determined and innovative “can-do” spirit that has led to many of our successes and will
continue to distinguish us.
 We appreciate community and a desire to work together with a sense of shared purpose:
We value our enduring relationships with our many local, national and international partners that
enable us to work together towards our common goals.
18
 We foster diversity with equity built through relationships, reciprocity, respect and relevance:
We value being an open, welcoming and supportive university with equal opportunities for everyone.
We respect all members of our community and their diverse contributions in advancing the
university’s goals and enriching the community for all.
 We prize academic freedom, institutional autonomy and ambition:
We value our institutional independence and the academic freedom to ambitiously engage in the
open pursuit of knowledge, including controversial matters, while practising scholarly responsibility.
Our place in the post-secondary landscape
Situated on the banks of the South Saskatchewan River, the University of Saskatchewan sits in Treaty Six
territory and on land long used by the First Nations and Métis of this area. On this site, with our elegant
stone buildings and vast green space, our campus is widely known to be one of the most beautiful in
Canada and an inspiring place to work and learn. Here, for more than a century, we have led far-sighted
research and innovation to help grow a province, partnering with communities, farmers and businesses to
achieve these gains. Now, increasingly, the University is recognizing our connections and commitments
to Aboriginal people of this territory. We are proud of our partnerships with Aboriginal communities.
These have brought us to a leadership role in First Nations, Métis and Inuit student engagement in
Canada. In Saskatchewan’s changing demographics and fast-growing economy, we play a key role in
enabling Saskatchewan people to find employment in this province and in attracting new, highly talented
citizens.
The University of Saskatchewan is a member of the U15 group of Canada’s leading research-intensive
universities. Collaboration is our signature trait: we rate very highly compared to our U15 peers in the
extent of our research collaboration with other institutions, industries and communities. Our key partners
include: U15 institutions and similar universities outside Canada; post-secondary institutions in the
province, especially our federated college, St. Thomas More; the Government of Saskatchewan and other
provincial governments; the federal government; funding organizations, alumni and donors who support
our mission; and prominent businesses, social agencies and arts communities. Given our relationships
outside Canada, partnerships with governments of our international partners are also important.
Uniquely among Canadian universities, we host two national laboratories—the Canadian Light Source
synchrotron and VIDO-InterVac, a state-of-the-art facility at the forefront of infectious disease research.
We also lead a distributed national facility, the SuperDARN network of radars. We are strong in research
commercialization, ranking high in national rankings of licensing revenue and driving innovation through
partnerships. Our peers are the 14 other research-intensive universities of Canada. Our benchmarking is
routinely against this group of peers.
19
Where will we leave our mark?
We will build on the unique, special and distinguishing attributes of the University of Saskatchewan to
leave a lasting legacy, focusing on commitment in three key areas: advancing our learning and discovery
mission, enhancing Aboriginal engagement, and inspiring lifelong citizenship.
ADVANCING LEARNING AND DISCOVERY
We recognize that the primary mission of any University is learning and discovery and believe that each is
best accomplished in the presence of the other. We value both curiosity-driven and application-driven
research, scholarly and artistic work. We are positioned to capitalize on our geographical and historical
attributes to continue to distinguish ourselves as one of the top research-intensive universities in North
America.
We will lead in our signature areas of focus and build on our strengths.
We recognize areas in which our research and academic programs establish our pre-eminence. These
include our signature areas (water, food, extractive industries, one health, synchrotron science and
Aboriginal peoples) and other areas of excellence across our many colleges and schools. We will
continue to lead in these matters and expand our areas of academic world leadership.
We will generate, communicate, and apply new knowledge in our areas of excellence, and become the
“go-to” place for Saskatchewan-made solutions and discussion of relevant global issues. We will leverage
these research strengths and continue to foster other emerging strengths to expand our academic
leadership globally.
We will capitalize on the synergies that our unique breadth offers in both our learning and
discovery missions, taking multidisciplinary approaches to global challenges.
We are the Canadian university with the broadest disciplinary coverage. This diversity in academic
programs, in ways of knowing and learning and in research, scholarly and artistic work enables us to
consider the world’s most difficult challenges from many perspectives simultaneously.
We will emphasize team learning and discovery experiences.
While we value and reward both individual and team research, our history has demonstrated that we are
stronger when we work together. We will seek out learning and discovery opportunities that allow us to
honour our sense of place as a strong community with a culture of collaboration. We will emphasize team
experiences for students and create physical spaces that encourage interaction.
20
We will be distinguished as a leader in community-based scholarship and education.
We will continue building strong partnerships with community-based organizations around our discovery
and learning missions and presenting opportunities for engagement by students, staff and faculty.
We will excel in and distribute high quality education, research and clinical training in the health
fields throughout the province.
We will increase the participation rates in post-secondary education in Saskatchewan by working to
eliminate or transcend the barriers that currently prevent many people in rural and northern
Saskatchewan from accessing a university education. We will expand our programming outside of
Saskatoon and make it possible for Saskatchewan people to pursue degrees without leaving their homes
and support structures.
A particularly important domain in which the university interacts strongly with our community is through
our health disciplines. A key goal for the coming decades is to improve the performance in our healthrelated fields in education and research.
ENHANCING ABORIGINAL ENGAGEMENT
We recognize that scholarly traditions and institutions, including our own, have often excluded First
Nations, Métis and Inuit people and knowledge. We will change this legacy at the University of
Saskatchewan.
As the Canadian research-intensive university with the highest percentage of self-identified Aboriginal
students and the highest proportion of provincial residents identifying as First Nations, Métis and Inuit,
we have a special role to play in modeling a university that offers Aboriginal students, and all students,
equitable access to an education and to university services. In partnership with Saskatchewan Indigenous
communities, we are uniquely positioned to identify the characteristics of such a university, to articulate
the principles that will guide the transition, and to make the changes that will ensure the success of our
Aboriginal students.
We will meaningfully incorporate Indigenous knowledge and perspectives into the curriculum, into
research, scholarly and artistic work, into operations and into the physical identity of the University
of Saskatchewan.
We will become a place where traditional Indigenous ways of knowing and Western scholarly ways of
knowing will meet, engage, and sometimes intertwine, for the mutual enrichment of both. In this coming
together, we will respect both scholarly traditions and Indigenous traditions, acknowledging that both
include knowledge, histories, values, cultural practices, and governance systems.
21
We will work to eliminate systemic barriers within our own practices and to strengthen supports for
Aboriginal students, including academic, social, and cultural programs.
Our efforts will be sensitive to the immediate challenges and systemic barriers inhibiting access and
academic success for Aboriginal students and to take steps to improve the system.
We will ensure Aboriginal students see themselves and their experiences reflected in the university’s
academic and administrative leadership.
We will recruit and retain Aboriginal faculty and staff in a variety of fields and roles. We will ensure we
recognize and develop leadership capacity among First Nations, Métis and Inuit students, faculty and staff
in order to build a diverse community at all levels and to establish a supportive environment.
INSPIRING LIFELONG CITIZENSHIP
We expect our students, faculty, and staff to be engaged members of our campus, local and global
communities, connecting and contributing to help make our communities stronger. We aim to inspire
students who value diversity, share their knowledge and continuously exercise leadership long after
graduation.
We will be strategic in our student recruitment, seeking out students who not only excel
academically but also demonstrate citizenship and capacity for leadership
We will align our recruitment strategies to best reflect the type of community we want to build. Our top
students will not only excel academically but they will also show their commitment to their communities
and to society-at-large. This approach serves the province, not only through attracting new highly
talented individuals, but by raising the degree completion rates across the board, enhancing our visibility
nationally and internationally, and shaping the leaders of tomorrow.
We value leadership within our community and will assess, develop and reward leadership skills
across the university.
We will do more to groom students, faculty and staff for leadership at all levels of the university. We will
describe the characteristics needed to support innovation, creativity, nimbleness and responsiveness, and
then create the opportunities that allow people to grow and exercise skills in these areas.
22
We will help students to succeed in their fields, equipping them for the future with the skills,
attributes and values to keep learning long after they have graduated.
We accept that career preparation is part of our mandate, but rather than training individuals for
particular job opportunities or to work for specific companies we will equip them to be continuous
learners and to seek out every opportunity to develop themselves. Our graduates will reflect our
institutional values and in particular will be known for learning actively, thinking broadly, acting ethically,
and engaging respectfully.
What will be our guiding principles?
The University of Saskatchewan chooses to be principle-driven in its actions and decisions. We recognize
the following principles that will help create and maintain the environment that enables us to reach our
vision.
People







We will put students at the centre of our programs and planning.
We will have our alumni recognize the university as having played a major role in their lives.
We will embrace diversity and actively promote equity in fulfilling our mission.
We will ensure our employees reflect the values of the university, and it is our responsibility to
make certain that we embed sufficient professional development in our operations so that our
personnel can grow their skills and expand their knowledge.
We will position ourselves to be competitive and we will reward outstanding performance.
We will ensure that our structures do not ossify, that we have sufficient flexibility to respond to
change and be nimble.
We will change how we view technology – seeing it as a means of changing the nature of our
work and study rather than simply a means of automating processes conceived in an earlier age.
Programs and Planning
 We will refer to our mission, vision and values in making hard decisions at all levels. We are
prepared to take some difficult actions to preserve integrity of mission.
 We will honour a culture of planning, implementing plans and evidence-based decision-making.
 Institutionally, we will define a set of key performance indicators that provide a snapshot of
performance and are regularly presented to the public and our governing bodies.
 We will identify areas in which risk-taking should be valued but also be clear about areas in which
we should be risk-averse.
 We will grow our academic programs and our student numbers only when we can do so while
maintaining or improving upon our learning and discovery standards and the quality of the
student experience.
23



We will increase our efforts to ensure that people throughout the world are aware of our
accomplishments. We will publish our results and we will publicize those accomplishments of
particular importance to our local, provincial, national, or global community.
We will be transparent and accountable in our decision-making.
We will retain our autonomy so that decisions are based not on expediency but on our best
judgments tempered by public discussion with interested parties.
Resources, Focus and Partnership
 We will resist the temptation to see funding as more than it is – a resource rather than a driver of
what we, as a public institution, can do.
 We will model how a university achieves financial, social and environmental sustainability in the
long term, through planning and attention to mission and priorities.
 We will ensure that our resources are distributed appropriately – neither massed in a narrow
portion of our mission, nor spread so thinly that we are incapable of excelling in any part of our
mandate.
 We will partner where it is clear that such a partnership is in the best interest of all involved and
preferable to competition. Partnerships are especially valued when they link to both our
discovery and learning missions.
 We will only grow new research or teaching programs that may be found elsewhere within the
province if we can provide added value, capitalize on unique opportunities at the University of
Saskatchewan, or respond to unmet demand.
 We will craft mechanisms to help us select which opportunities we will respond to in a timely
fashion.
The University of Saskatchewan in 2025
Achieving this vision of a more engaged and research-intensive university will require innovative thinking,
commitment, and a willingness to challenge established processes and structures. Building on our proud
history, our strengths, and our outstanding talent, we are determined to make the changes needed to
take this institution to the next level of academic, research and community engagement by the end of
this quarter century.
24
UNIVERSITY OF SASKATCHEWAN
AGENDA ITEM NO: 8.0
UNIVERSITY SENATE
SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE REPORT
PRESENTED BY:
Lenore Swystun, Chair
Senate Education Committee
DATE OF MEETING:
April 26, 2014
SUBJECT:
Education Topic for Spring Senate Meeting
BACKGROUND:
By amendment to the Senate’s bylaws in October 2013, the education committee was added as a
standing committee of Senate. The education committee is to provide at each Senate meeting an
opportunity for education or exploration of issues relating to the University. This is to be done by
first polling Senators and then consulting with the executive committee respecting formation of
the agenda.
The committee polled Senators and received six responses, which included eight suggestions in
total. Of the eight suggestions, four of them were related to TransformUS and financial issues at
the University. The committee discussed various approaches to this discussion item, as well as
possible formats for both teaching and exploration of the issue. The committee chair also
consulted with the Provost and VP Academic, Brett Fairbairn, to discuss the various options.
SUMMARY REPORT:
Following is the recommended education topic and format for the upcoming Spring Senate
meeting:
Topic: Financial sustainability at the university
Format of discussion:

Statement on foundations for a successful discussion provided by Lenore
Swystun, education committee chair

Brett Fairbairn, Provost & VP Academic and Greg Fowler, VP Finance and
Resources to address the following questions:
o
Why are universities addressing sustainability?
o
What are the pressures on our university’s budget?
o
What is the university currently working on?
o
What are some questions we see for the future?
25

Break-out groups of Senate to discuss the context of sustainability of the
university from the budget perspective. The groups will be asked to address the
following questions which will provide input on the revenue side as the
university works to update its multi-year budget framework:
o
Should the university expect government grant increases to be more than
2% per year?
o
What should we project for tuition fee increases?
o
What should we project for investment targets?
o
What should we project for donations?
Information from the break-out groups will be captured on flip charts and posted
around the room.

Reconvene in a plenary session and have a discussion that is co-facilitated by
education committee chair and member. Capture Senate’s view on the broader
path of where the university is going.
26
AGENDA ITEM NO: 9.1
REPORT TO SENATE ON UNIVERSITY COUNCIL ACTIVITIES 2013/2014
Jay Kalra, Chair, University Council
The University of Saskatchewan Act 1995 established a representative University Council for the
University of Saskatchewan, conferring on the Council responsibility and authority “for
overseeing and directing the university’s academic affairs.”
The 2013-14 academic year marks the 19th year of the representative University Council. I am
pleased to report on the activities of the Council from April 1, 2013 to March 30, 2014.
In addition to the normal activities associated with oversight of the university’s academic affairs,
which have engaged Council over the past year, Council has been significantly involved in
discussion of the TransformUS program prioritization process.
The following is a summary of the major Council items over the last year:
University Council approvals
University
 Disestablishment of Open Studies (confirmed by Senate October, 2013)
 Disestablishment of the Environmental Engineering Division (presented to
Senate for confirmation, April 2014)
Arts and Science
 Renaming of the Department of Languages and Linguistics to the Department of
Languages, Literatures and Cultural Studies
 Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.) in Applied Mathematics
 Certificate in Global Studies
 Certificate in Criminology and Addictions
 Termination of the Bachelor of Arts (BA) Four-year and Honours in Community
Planning and Native Studies
 Bachelor of Arts and Science (BA&Sc) Honours and Four-year degree programs
in the field of Health Studies
Engineering
 Exploration the resource implications of setting a target for admissions to the
College of Engineering of up to 700 first-year students, to be phased in from
2014 to 2017
Dentistry
 Changes to Dentistry admission requirements, effective August 2014 (presented
to Senate for confirmation, April 2014):
- the addition of a human physiology course as a required prerequisite course
27
Report to Senate on University Council activities 2013/2014
2
- the completion of three full-time (30-credit-unit) years of university course
work as a condition of admission
- the implementation of a criminal record check
Graduate Studies & Research
 Master of Arts (MA) degree program in Women’s, Gender and Sexualities
Studies
 Changes to admission requirements to the Master of Nursing (Nurse Practitioner
option) and Postgraduate Degree Specialization Certificate: Nurse Practitioner
(presented to Senate for confirmation, April 2014)
 Termination of the Master of Continuing Education (MCEd.)
Medicine
 Approval of PRISM (Proteomics Research in Interactions and Structure of
Macromolecules) as a Type A centre
 Replacement program for the Doctor of Medicine (MD) program
 Changes to Medicine admission requirements to require the Medical College
Admissions Test (MCAT) of all Saskatchewan residents who apply for entrance,
effective October 2014 (presented to Senate for confirmation, April 2014)
Nursing
 Replacement program for Post-Degree Bachelor of Science in Nursing
 Revised Admission Requirements for Post-Degree Bachelor of Science (BSc) in
Nursing (confirmed by Senate, October 2013)
School of Environment and Sustainability
 Certificate of Sustainability
Policy approvals
The Human Research Ethics policy was approved to replace the Policy on Research Involving
Human Subjects; the Responsible Conduct of Research Policy was approved to replace the
Research Integrity Policy.
Bylaws Amendments
The following Bylaws amendments were approved:
 The inclusion of a statement in the Council Bylaws that attendees at Council
meetings are expected to refrain from audio or video recording of the proceedings;
 Revisions to the College of Education Faculty Council membership;
 Revisions to the College of Agriculture and Bioresources Faculty Council
membership;
 Approval of revised terms of reference for the academic programs committee and
the research, scholarly and artistic work committee and the revision to all
committee terms of reference to permit committees to designate individuals to act
as representatives on their behalf, upon request;
 A further delegation of authority from the College of Engineering Faculty Council
to Council committees.
28
Report to Senate on University Council activities 2013/2014
3
New Chairs and Professorships
The joint committee on chairs and professorships requested approval from the Council and from
the Board of Governors to establish the following new professorships:
 Global Institute for Food Security (GIFS) Enhancement Chairs Program
 University of Saskatchewan Centennial Enhancement Chair
Reports
As well as its regular monthly reports from the president and the provost and from the University
of Saskatchewan Students Union (USS) and from the Graduate Students’ Association (GSA),
Council also received the Fall Census Day Enrolment Report, the Graduate Education Review
Committee phase 1 report on the College of Graduate Studies and Research, the policy oversight
committee year-end report, and a report from the vice-president research. Council was consulted
regarding the proposed new vision statement, Vision 2025: From Spirit to Action, and will be
presented with the final document on April 17 for consideration of approval.
The following reports were provided to the Council from its committees:
Academic Programs Committee (Chair: Roy Dobson, Pharmacy and Nutrition): As
well as reviewing the program proposals and admission qualification changes listed
above, the committee updated the Academic Courses policy, developed procedures for
regular reviews of college admission qualifications and selection criteria, and began
discussions on development of a university policy on transfer credit and articulation. The
committee also approved the implementation of a week-long fall break for the fall term of
2014. The committee also reported to Council on those changes in admission selection
criteria approved by colleges (summary attached).
Governance Committee (Chairs: Gordon Zello, Pharmacy and Nutrition, and Carol
Rodgers, Kinesiology): In accordance with its role relative to University Council bylaws,
regulations, rules and procedures, the committee submitted a statement on recording
Council meetings, completed several revisions to the membership of faculties and
submitted revisions to the terms of reference for a number of Council committees.
Coordinating Committee (Chair: Jay Kalra, Pathology): The committee met regularly
to set the agenda for Council meetings and determine the disposition of motions from
individual members of the Council.
International Activities Committee (Chairs: Hans Michelmann, Political Studies and
Gap Soo Chang, Physics and Engineering Physics): The committee focused on
international university rankings and metrics; international enrolment and recruitment
activities; and a project to review study abroad initiatives and funding. The committee
also received regular reports on international research activities.
Nominations Committee (Chairs: Dwayne Brenna, Drama and Ed Krol, Pharmacy and
Nutrition): The committee made nominations to Council for membership on the Council
committees and other university committees, as required.
29
Report to Senate on University Council activities 2013/2014
4
Research, Scholarly and Artistic Work Committee (Chairs: Stephen Urquhart,
Chemistry and Caroline Tait, Psychiatry): In addition to focusing on the revisions to the
university’s research integrity policies and presenting these to Council for approval, the
committee presented a report for information entitled Principles and Strategies in
Support of Research Success, and submitted the university research ethics boards’ annual
reports.
Planning and Priorities Committee (Chairs: Bob Tyler, Food and Bioproduct Sciences
and Fran Walley, Soil Science): The committee reviewed several proposals for the
establishment of new centres and notices for new degree programs. Relative to its role to
report on the main elements of the university’s operating and capital budgets, the
committee provided advice and reported to Council on the annual Operations Forecast
submission to the province and the university’s operating budget. The committee also
presented to Council the College of Medicine implementation plan The Way Forward, a
progress report on the implementation of Promise and Potential, the third integrated plan,
the Strategic Enrolment Management (SEM) report summary and submitted the
TransformUS task force reports to Council. The committee also reported to Council on its
own view and assessment of the TransformUS process, supplemented by the views of all
Council committees.
Scholarships and Awards Committee (Chair: Gordon DesBrisay, History):
In accordance with its mandate, the committee has reviewed and authorized fund
allocations for a variety of student awards. In addition, the committee received
information on and discussed the issue of graduate student funding within the Arts and
Science Division of Science, and looks forward to contributing further to the third
integrated plan commitment on student funding.
Teaching, Learning and Academic Resources Committee (Chair: Aaron Phoenix,
Engineering): In May, 2013, Council approved the merger of the teaching and learning
committee with the academic support committee, with the intention that the university
should have one committee dealing with all elements of teaching and learning, from
pedagogy to technology. The teaching, learning and academic resources committee
determined four primary areas for its activity over the next several years: evaluation of
teaching, the teaching-research nexus, Aboriginal engagement, and implementation of the
Learning Charter. The Committee has also brought documents to Council for discussion
including the Academic Advising Charter, a white paper on experiential learning, and the
distributed learning implementation plan.
Council engagement
During the course of the year, regular meetings of the chair of the Council, and the chairs of the
academic programs, planning and priorities, and research, scholarly and artistic work committees
were scheduled with the provost’s committee on integrated planning (PCIP). Members of the
coordinating committee, comprised of the chair, vice-chair and committee chairs, also had
monthly breakfast meetings with the president and vice-presidents to discuss common topics of
interest.
Respectfully submitted,
30
Report to Senate on University Council activities 2013/2014
5
Jay Kalra, Chair
Attachment: 2014-15 Admissions Template Update Report
31
Attachment
Academic Programs Committee of Council
2014-2015 Admissions Template Update Report
Introduction
Under the University of Saskatchewan Admissions policy dated May, 2012, admission to
the University of Saskatchewan is based on documented qualifications as established by
University Council and confirmed by Senate. These qualifications may be defined in areas of
objective qualifications such as high school subjects, secondary or post-secondary standing,
minimum averages, English proficiency, and minimum scores on standardized tests.
The Council and Senate have delegated to each college faculty council the authority to
establish such other reasonable selection criteria as each faculty council may consider
appropriate to its program of study. Selection criteria are a means by which a college can assess
or rank its qualified applicants. Admission decisions for entry into the College of Graduate
Studies and Research may also take into consideration the availability of suitable faculty
supervisors, funding and other factors.
It is the responsibility of each college faculty council that has been delegated authority
over admission decisions to ensure that the admission qualifications and selection criteria for
admission, relative weighting, application procedures, deadline for applications, and the process
for evaluation of applicants are published and readily available to the general public and reported
annually to Council and to Senate.
Admissions Template
The Admissions Template is now used by the Admissions Office as a mechanism for
reporting to the Academic Programs Committee and to Council on the changes colleges are
making to qualifications and criteria for admissions.
In February, 2013, the Academic Programs Committee provided Council with the first set
of college admission templates for university programs. This set of templates acted as a baseline
for colleges in terms of the qualifications, criteria, categories and requirements being used for
admission of students to university programs. The templates are now posted in the Reports
section of the Academic Programs Committee website, updated annually. A summary report is
provided to Council each year which summarizes the changes in qualifications and criteria from
one year to the next.
2014-15 Summary Report to Council
Following is the 2014-15 admission template update report, which lists the changes in
admission qualifications and selection criteria compared to last year’s report. Where admission
qualifications have changed, the chart also provides notes on these changes. The complete set of
admission templates are available at the following URL:
http://www.usask.ca/secretariat/governingbodies/council/committee/academic_programs/reports2013-14/AdmissionTemplates2014.pdf
32
2014-15 changes to templates compared to previous
year
Agriculture & Bioresources
Bachelor of Science in Agribusiness (B.Sc. (Agbus) or
Diploma in Agribusiness (Dipl. Agbus)) – Physics 30
added as alternative in satisfying science requirements.
Applicants must present one of Biology 30, Chemistry
30 or Physics 30
Diploma in Agronomy (Dipl.Agrn) –added to templates
Indigenous Peoples Resource Management (IPRM)
Certificate – added to template
Arts & Science
Bachelor of Arts (Major in Music) - added to templates
Bachelor of Music, Bachelor of Music (Music
Education)
Selection Criteria
Regular Admission – wording clarification: “admission
based primarily on …”
Special Mature Admissions – Wording removed as
shown: “Applicants are admitted at the discretion of the
College. The admission decision is based on the
applicant’s written submission and demonstrated
academic potential, as well as results of the audition and
placement test”.
University Transition Program
Under Categories of Admission wording changed from
“after successfully completing 18 credit units and
meeting the Promotion Standards, students are eligible
to continue in the College of Arts and Science either on
or off campus” to “after successfully completing 18
credit units with a minimum CWA of 56%, students can
remain in the College of Arts & Science and begin
taking studies on the U of S main campus.”
Dentistry
D.M.D.
Admission Qualifications
Newly added: “IMPORTANT NOTICE: The College of
Dentistry has requested the approval of the University of
Saskatchewan to change the qualifications for admission
to require applicants to have completed three full time
(3o credit unit) years of university level course work
towards a degree program between September and April
prior to admission effective for the 2015-2016 admission
cycle. The results of this request will be posted to the
website as soon as they are available.”
Notes about changes to
qualifications
Physics 30 has been a longstanding
alternative for entrance to business
programs in the college
Revised wording reflects college
promotion requirements
Approved by Council December 2013
33
Selection Criteria
Dental Aptitude Test 15% weighting, the Carving
component of the DAT has been removed and the
weightings redistributed among the other 3 components.
Reading Comprehension (1/3), Academic Average (1/3),
Perceptual Ability (1/3)
Education
Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.), Secondary Sequential
Program
Admission Qualifications
previously read as:
Two Teaching Area requirements are part of the 60
credit units required, with at least 30 credit units of the
60 at the senior level: Teaching Area 1: minimum of 24
credit units (18 senior credit units) with a minimum
average of 60%. Teaching Area 2: minimum of 15
credit units (9 senior credit units) with a minimum
average of 60%.
Now reads as:
Two Teaching Area requirements are part of the 60
credit units required: Teaching Area 1: minimum of 24
credit units with a minimum average of 60%. Teaching
Area 2: minimum of 15 credit units with a minimum
average of 60%.
Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.), Elementary and
Middle Years Sequential Program
Admission Qualifications
previously stated as:
Two Teaching Area requirements are part of the 60
credit units required: Teaching Area 1: minimum of 18
credit units (12 senior credit units). Teaching Area 2:
minimum of 12 credit units (6 senior credit units.
Now reads as:
Two Teaching Area requirements are part of the 60
credit units required: Teaching Area 1: minimum of 18
credit units.
Teaching Area 2: minimum of 12 credit units.
Indian Teacher Education Program (ITEP),
Saskatchewan Urban Native Teacher Education
Program (SUNTEP), Northern Teacher Education
Program (NORTEP)
ITEP – Regular Admission – added note that Workplace
and Apprenticeship Math 30 is not acceptable
Engineering
Bachelor of Science in Engineering (B.E.)
Selection Criteria
Clarifies existing practice. Senior
course requirements are included in
each teaching area; these vary
depending on the area and on the
numbering conventions used for
academic courses.
Reflects existing admission practice
34
for Regular Admission – changed to “Competitive
ranked admission (top down by average) is in place to
manage enrolment in the College”
Graduate Studies & Research
Postgraduate Diploma – Newly Added under
Categories of Applicants: Special Admission: Applicant
applies for a program that is not regularized. A
minimum cumulative weighted average of 75% is
required. Other qualifications and selection criteria are
the same, and applicants must also submit proposal,
including a complete program of studies.
Post-Graduate Degree Specialization Certificate –
Newly Added under Categories of Applicants: Special
Admission: Applicant applies for a program that is not
regularized. A minimum cumulative weighted average of
75% is required. Other qualifications and selection
criteria are the same, and applicants must also submit
proposal, including a complete program of studies.
Kinesiology
Bachelor of Science in Kinesiology (B.Sc.(Kin))
Admission Qualifications
Newly added “average based on courses completed by
the end of Term 1 in grade 12 year”.
Selection Criteria
for Regular Admission – added “Competitive ranked
admission (top down by average) is in place to manage
enrolment in the College”
Medicine
M.D.
Admission Qualifications
Added:
Scores must be obtained in one sitting prior to the
application deadline and current within the last 5 years
(earliest accepted scores for 2014 entry are 2009). The
maximum number of times an applicant may take the
MCAT is 5 times (additional sittings will not be
accepted unless preapproved in writing by the
Admission Office, College of Medicine).
MCAT Requirement – All Out-of-Province applicants
must complete the Medical College Admission Test
(MCAT) prior to application. Scores on the Verbal
Reasoning, Physical Sciences and Biological Sciences
sections must total a minimum of 30 (no score less than
8 on any section), and a minimum writing score of N.
Selection Criteria
2. References – Changed for 2014-2015: The names of
Reflects existing admission practice
Medicine admission qualifications
changes approved by Council March,
2013 and January, 2014.
35
two referees and their contact information will be
requested from applicants at the time of interview offers.
4. Standard First Aid Certificate –For 2014-2015 it
reads: “Students accepted into the College of Medicine
must provide a copy of the valid Standard First Aid
Certificate prior to starting medicine classes in August”.
Categories of Applicants:
4. Special Case Category:
2013-2014 read as:
• The Admissions committee will consider special
case entrants submitting requests in writing
• Note: Advice on the suitability of special case
requests should be obtained from the Admissions
Office prior to submission. An example would be
a single parent whose family responsibilities
prevent them from attending university full-time
or a student involved on a university sports team
with a significant time commitment (training,
games/competitions, and travel) making it
difficult to take a full course load.
• Special case requests should be made prior to
each academic year, and previous requests will
be taken into consideration when reviewing
subsequent requests.
2014-2015 reads as:
• Special cases are granted prospectively to
applicants to facilitate their meeting the
application requirements while dealing with
unique circumstances. The intent of a special
case consideration is to help applicants prepare
for Medicine prior to their application and not
after they have submitted their application.
Nursing
BSN (4 year)
Admission Qualifications
*A deficiency is allowed in one of these four areas…
was previously stated in 2013-2014 as “three areas”.
Selection Criteria
2. Other Credential to be Determined – Dates to be
determined has been added and specific deadline dates
removed. WHIMS and TLR have been added as
credentials required.
Categories of Applicants
2. Aboriginal Equity Access Program – 16.6% has been
updated from 16% in 2013-2014.
Post-Degree BSN
Clarifies existing practice.
36
Admissions Qualifications
A completed baccalaureate degree OR 90 credit units
towards a degree with at least 36 credit units at the
senior level…. (“towards a degree” added in 20142015).
Added to Pre-requisite courses for 2014-2015:
Native Studies (3 credit units)
Microbiology (3 credit units)
Social Sciences (6 credit units) 9 credit units previously
required in 2013-2014
Deficiency allowed in the following subjects:
Native Studies (3 credit units) added for 2014-2015
Selection Criteria
2. Other Credential to be Determined – Dates to be
determined has been added and specific deadline dates
removed. WHIMS and TLR have been added as
credentials required.
Open Studies
REMOVED – NO LONGER OPERATIONAL
Pharmacy and Nutrition
Bachelor of Science in Nutrition (B.Sc. (Nutrition))
Admission Qualifications
3 credit units General Chemistry (with lab) (CHEM
112.3 at U of S) newly added for 2014-2015
3 credit units Organic Chemistry (with lab) (CHEM
250.3 at U of S) newly added for 2014-2015
Veterinary Medicine
DVM
Admission Qualifications
Minimum cumulative average of 75% in all university
courses. This sentence was added for 2014-2015.
Selection Criteria
# 2. Interview – Applicants are selected for interview
based primarily on their academic performance. The
word primarily was added for 2014-2015.
Categories of Admission
Clarification of wording regarding interprovincial
agreement and quota allotment.
Revised Post-Degree BSN program
was approved by Council in June,
2013.
Approved by Council in June, 2013
Clarifies class selections for students
Approved by Council April, 2011
37
UNIVERSITY OF SASKATCHEWAN
AGENDA ITEM NO: 9.2
UNIVERSITY SENATE
REQUEST FOR DECISION
PRESENTED BY:
Jay Kalra, Council Chair
DATE OF MEETING:
April 26, 2014
SUBJECT:
Disestablishment of the Division of Environmental Engineering
DECISION REQUESTED:
It is recommended:
That Senate confirm Council’s decision to approve the
disestablishment of the Division of Environmental
Engineering.
PURPOSE:
On December 19, 2013, Council approved the disestablishment of the Division of
Environmental Engineering. Section 62(c) of the University of Saskatchewan Act requires
that a decision to authorize the disestablishment of a department “be reported to the
Senate at its next meeting,” and that the decision not be implemented until “either Senate
confirms the decision or 12 months have passed following the end of the fiscal year in
which the decision was made, whichever is the earlier.” As the division functions as a
department, consideration of the decision by Council, Senate and the Board of Governors
is required. The definition of a division in the nomenclature report which applies is that
of an administrative or organizational unit, much like a department, which reflects the
unit’s disciplinary or interdisciplinary approach towards program delivery and research
and scholarly work.
The disestablishment of the Division of Environmental Engineering is taken in response
to the new management structure adopted for the graduate-level degree programs housed
within the division. This new structure will provide more effective administration and
representation of these multidisciplinary graduate programs by a department head and
graduate chair in the College of Engineering, as opposed to a division head.
DISCUSSION SUMMARY:
The College of Graduate Studies and Research (CGSR) is responsible for the Division of
Environmental Engineering, with operational responsibility devolved to the College of
Engineering. In 2011, an administrative review of the division was commissioned in
response to perceived weaknesses in the governance, mandate and administrative
structure of the division. In response to the review report, the CGSR, supported by the
College of Engineering, elected to transfer the responsibility for the program from the
38
chair of the division to one of the existing department heads in the College of
Engineering. On October 8, 2013, Graduate Council approved the new management
structure, and then voted to disestablish the division.
The program, and the environmental engineering graduate students currently enrolled in
the program, continue to have a primary individual serving as the administrative head,
and continue to be housed in the Engineering Building. Due to low enrolment and low
admissions, new student admissions were suspended pending the academic review of the
program by the CGSR and the results of TransformUS. Current students continue to have
every opportunity to complete and graduate from their program.
The Board of Governors will be asked to authorize the disestablishment of the division at
the Board meeting on May 27, 2014.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Proposal to disestablish the Division of Environmental Engineering and covering
correspondence
39
Attachment 1: Proposal to disestablish the Division of
Environmental Engineering and covering correspondence
College of Graduate Studies and Research
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Sandy Calver
FROM:
Dr. Trever Crowe
Associate Dean, and Acting Chair of the Graduate Programs Committee, College
of Graduate Studies and Research
DATE:
October 10, 2013
RE:
Proposal for change of management for the Graduate Program in Environmental
Engineering
At its October 8th meeting, the Graduate Council of the College of Graduate Studies and
Research approved an alternate management structure for the graduate programs in
environmental engineering. The new structure does not incorporate the Division of
Environmental Engineering, and therefore, members of Graduate Council also passed a second
motion to disestablish the Division of Environmental Engineering. The College of Graduate
Studies and Research requests the proposal to disestablish this division be reviewed for
university-level approval. Please find attached documentation associated with the proposal.
Sincerely,
Trever Crowe,
ab for TC
40
College of Graduate Studies and Research
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Graduate Executive Committee
FROM:
Dr. Trever Crowe
Associate Dean, and Acting Chair of the Graduate Programs Committee, College
of Graduate Studies and Research
DATE:
August 30, 2013
RE:
Proposal for change of management for the Graduate Program in Environmental
Engineering
At its May 7 meeting the Graduate Programs Committee of the College of Graduate Studies and
Research considered the proposal for a change of management of the Graduate Program in
Environmental Engineering. At its May 7, 2013 meeting, the committee passed the following
motions:
“To accept the proposed model for Environmental Engineering programs”. J.
Soltan/ S. Whiting. All in favour. Carried.
“To disestablish the division of Environmental Engineering”. J. Soltan/ R. Cooley.
All in favour. Carried.
Please find attached documentation associated with the proposal for a change of management
for the Graduate Program in Environmental Engineering considered by the Graduate Programs
Committee.
Sincerely,
Trever Crowe,
Acting Chair, Graduate Programs Committee, College of Graduate Studies and Research
ab for TC
41
Proposal to Disestablish the Division of Environmental Engineering Name of the Unit being Disestablished Division of Environmental Engineering Overview It is requested that University Council authorize the dissolution of the Division of Environmental Engineering, a department‐like and ‘type A’ centre‐like unit currently administered by the College of Engineering. The dissolution will be preceded by the Dean of Engineering transferring administrative responsibility for the graduate program in Environmental Engineering to a department head in the College; namely, Ding‐Yu Peng, Department Head, Chemical & Biological Engineering. The program will be administered as an interdepartmental program within a departmentalized college. The department head will oversee program administration, while academically the program will be supported and championed by faculty from several departments. This mirrors the approach used to administer the undergraduate environmental engineering program: that program is administered by the Department Head, Civil & Geological Engineering and is provided academic leadership and is delivered by faculty from multiple departments. The dissolution of the division follows a thorough review. The College commissioned a review of the Division in December 2011, which involved the faculty of the division through consultation and a self‐study. The review concluded that the graduate program in Environmental Engineering remains viable, but the division is struggling with unclear governance, mandate and administrative structure. The lack of a champion for the program and an unclear connection to the university’s administrative structure, including the College of Engineering Executive and the College of Graduate Studies and Research, was a challenge for the division. To resolve these administrative challenges, the College is proposing to adopt the same approach that is working successfully (although not perfectly) to administer other graduate programs: a graduate chair supervised by a department head with a connection to CGSR and its faculty council. Academic Rationale No program changes are proposed. The review of the Division was limited to the governance and the administrative structure. Reviewing this graduate program remains a priority. Since the program was created, the University’s suite of programming relating to environmental studies has changed considerably (for example, the School of Environment and Sustainability has been created). It is expected that the program will be reviewed in the coming years through the CGSR program review process and/or TransformUS and changes will be proposed to continue it as a viable program. 42
Consultation & Support The proposed dissolution was discussed with the College Executive on September 11, 2012 and with the Division of Environmental Engineering on October 15, 2012. The college was informed of the intent to disband the division in an email from the Dean on October 19, 2012 and the item was discussed at Faculty Council on November 13, 2012. The College of Engineering Faculty Council endorsed the proposal on December 4, 2012. The College of Graduate Studies and Research considered the proposal in December 2012 and requested further information. Management Academic Leadership The faculty who deliver a program have a collective academic responsibility for the program content, supervision of students, and for providing general academic leadership. As with other graduate programs, a group of faculty work under the authority of the CGSR Faculty Council to exercise academic oversight and authority for the program and the students within the program. To facilitate this work, the Graduate Chair will convene and oversee a program committee, which will be comprised of the faculty who supervise students and/or support the program from several departments in the College of Engineering. The dissolution of the division will not have any direct impact on the number of faculty who support and deliver the program. The program is supported by faculty from many engineering disciplines; currently Gordon Putz, Huiqing Guo, Ajay Dalai, Hui Wang, Moh Boulfiza, Jian Peng and Richard Evitts are supervising students in this program. Going forward, a list of faculty who support the Environmental Engineering graduate program, complete with their current supervisory activity level, will be maintained and reported to the deans of Engineering and CGSR and made publicly available. This will ensure there is greater clarity about the faculty complement that is supporting the graduate program. The College will ensure there are adequate faculty in place to deliver the graduate program for as long as there are students enrolled in the program. The Associate Dean – Faculty Relations works collaboratively with college academic leaders through the assignment of duties process to ensure there are sufficient faculty resources to meet the needs of students enrolled in all programs delivered by the college. Administrative Leadership The College of Engineering understands the general approach to graduate programs administration to be as follows: ‐ The Dean of Engineering is accountable for the success of graduate programs delivered by the College of Engineering and for the success of the graduate students enrolled in these programs. This For Endorsement, CGSR Graduate Programs Committee, April 2013 2 43
responsibility is delegated from the Dean, College of Graduate Studies and Research, and is typically delegated to a department head for each program. ‐ The Department Head ensures that programs are effectively administered. Reporting to the Dean of Engineering, the head’s responsibilities include:  appointing a graduate chair and supporting his or her success  assigning faculty to teach graduate courses  ensuring clerical/administrative support for the program and students is in place  ensuring facilities and resources are available  administering devolved scholarships  ensuring CGSR and other university policies are followed. ‐ The Graduate Chair is responsible for the day‐to‐day operations of the program. Reporting to the department head, the chair ensures the program is delivered and that students are supported. The details of these responsibilities are expanded on in greater detail in the CGSR policy manual. The division structure has been challenging to administer as it doesn’t confirm to the model articulated above. The Division Chair was intended to take the role of a department head but this has been difficult in practise. Without the ability to assign duties to faculty or connect into the college’s financial, human resource and space management processes, division chairs have struggled to understand and exercise their accountabilities. Before the division is dissolved, the Dean of Engineering will assign program management to an administrative lead within the College of Engineering. The letter of delegation is attached. Over time, the department head responsible for the program may change to reflect changing workloads, competencies, and other factors in the College. This department head will oversee program administration including appointing a graduate chair effective July 1, 2013. This will mirror the model that is used to oversee other graduate programs in the College of Engineering. The Department Head responsible for Environmental Engineering will have the additional responsibility of working collaboratively with other department heads to ensure that faculty from across the college continue to support program delivery through teaching graduate classes and supervising students, and will be responsible for bringing challenges to the attention of other heads in the College. The Division is currently managed by an Acting Chair. This term ends on June 30, 2013, and at that point the department head will take over the role of providing administrative oversight. Resources and Budget Dissolving the division will have no impact on the resources that support this graduate program. The College of Engineering remains committed to ensuring all graduate programs are fairly and adequately resourced within the financial parameters of the College. This includes providing operating funding and space to support students and assigning a graduate secretary with responsibility for supporting students and faculty affiliated with the program. The College will ensure all Engineering graduate programs are sufficiently and fairly supported with the available resources. For Endorsement, CGSR Graduate Programs Committee, April 2013 3 44
Systematic Assessment An assessment of the division began in December 2011 and concluded in September 2012. The self‐assessment and the final report are available on the College of Engineering website. The College will monitor the program administration and undertake further administrative reviews as necessary to ensure the College continues to function effectively and efficiently. It is evident that the program should be reviewed: it has not been reviewed since the School of Environment and Sustainability was created and adjustments are likely required to ensure a coordinated approach to interdisciplinary environmental studies at the U of S. The environmental engineering graduate program was scheduled for review in 2012/13 but that review was subsequently postponed by the CGSR. For Endorsement, CGSR Graduate Programs Committee, April 2013 4 45
AGENDA ITEM NO: 9.3
UNIVERSITY OF SASKATCHEWAN
UNIVERSITY SENATE
ITEM FOR CONFIRMATION
PRESENTED BY:
Jay Kalra, Chair, University Council
DATE OF MEETING:
April 26, 2014
SUBJECT:
College of Dentistry: change to admission qualifications
DECISION REQUESTED:
It is recommended:
That Senate confirm the revision of the College of Dentistry
admission qualifications to add a human physiology course
(such as PHSI 208 Human Body Systems or its equivalent) as a
required course for admission to the Doctor of Dental
Medicine program (DMD), effective for admissions in August
2015.
That Senate confirm the revision of the College of Dentistry
admission qualifications to add an admission requirement for
completion of three full-time (30-credit-unit) years of university
course work completed between the September to April
academic year leading to an undergraduate level degree as a
condition of admission to the DMD, effective for admissions in
August 2015.
That Senate confirm the revision of the College of Dentistry
admission qualifications to add the implementation of a criminal
record check as an admission requirement for admission to the
DMD, effective for admissions in August 2015.
PURPOSE:
The University of Saskatchewan Act states that decisions regarding admission qualifications and
enrolment quotas for university programs are to be approved by Council and confirmed by
University Senate.
SUMMARY:
At its meeting on December 19, 2013, University Council approved three changes to the
admission requirements of the College of Dentistry:
1. Changes in the Medicine curriculum, which were approved by Council in November, will
affect several aspects of the DMD curriculum. Courses on human physiology taken by
dental students at the College of Medicine are being discontinued. Following discussions
between the colleges, it was agreed that the human physiology component of the DMD
should be dealt with by requiring students to complete a human physiology course as a
46
prerequisite for admission to the College of Dentistry.
2. The College of Dentistry is proposing to change its admission qualifications to replace the
current requirement for “60 credit units of university-level work within two standard academic
terms” with a requirement for “three full-time (30 credit unit) years of university-level course
work towards a degree program”. This change better aligns the College with other Canadian
dental schools with respect to admission requirements, and also better aligns the College’s
offer dates with other Canadian dental schools, providing a better slate of candidates. It also
increases the quality of applicants by requiring more maturity and academic experience of
potential applicants.
3. The College of Dentistry is proposing to require submission of a Criminal Record Check as a
condition of admission. This better aligns the College’s admission requirements with that of
other Canadian dental schools.
ATTACHMENT:
Academic programs committee report to University Council of December, 2013 and proposal from
the College of Dentistry.
47
ATTACHMENT: Academic programs committee report to University Council of
December, 2013 and proposal from the College of Dentistry.
AGENDA ITEM NO: 9.2
UNIVERSITY COUNCIL
ACADEMIC PROGRAMS COMMITTEE
REQUEST FOR DECISION
PRESENTED BY:
Roy Dobson, Chair, Academic Programs Committee of Council
DATE OF MEETING:
December 19, 2013
SUBJECT:
College of Dentistry admission qualification changes
DECISION REQUESTED:
It is recommended:
That Council approve the addition of a human physiology course
(such as PHSI 208 Human Body Systems or its equivalent) as a
required prerequisite course for admission into the DMD program,
effective for admissions in August 2015.
That Council approve the College of Dentistry admission
requirement for completion of three full-time (30-credit-unit) years
of university course work completed between the September to April
academic year leading to an undergraduate level degree as a
condition of admission to the DMD program, effective for
admissions in August 2015.
That Council approve the implementation of a criminal record check
as an admission requirement, effective for admissions in August
2015.
PURPOSE:
Under the University of Saskatchewan Act 1995, decisions regarding admission qualifications
and enrolment quotas for university programs are to be approved by Council and confirmed by
Senate. Admission qualifications are defined in the Admissions Policy as follows:
These are the credentials that an applicant must present in order to establish eligibility
for admission. They include but are not restricted to objective qualifications such as high
school subjects, secondary or post-secondary standing, minimum averages, English
proficiency, and minimum scores on standardized tests. Qualifications may vary for some
admission categories.
The motions if approved by Council will be presented to the Spring, 2014 meeting of University
Senate for confirmation.
SUMMARY:
The College of Dentistry is proposing three changes to its admission qualifications:
1. Changes in the Medicine curriculum, which were approved by Council in November, will
affect several aspects of the Dentistry curriculum. Following discussions between the colleges, it
was agreed that the human physiology component of the Dentistry program should be dealt with
48
by requiring students to complete a human physiology course as a prerequisite for admission to
the College of Dentistry.
2. The College is proposing to change its admission qualifications to replace the current
requirement for “60 credit units of university-level work within two standard academic terms”
with a requirement for “three full-time (30 credit unit) years of university-level course work
towards a degree program”. The rationale for this change and specific implementation
procedures are described in the attached material.
3. The College is proposing to require submission of a Criminal Record Check as a condition of
admission. The rationale for this change is described in the attached materials.
REVIEW:
The Academic Programs Committee discussed the changes in admission qualifications with
Acting Associate Dean Garnet Packota and Kelly Mulligan at its meeting on November 6. The
committee requested some additional information regarding comparisons with other universities,
and letters of support for this change.
Also, as the ramifications of the curricular changes in the College of Medicine were clarified, the
committee asked for additional consultation with the College of Dentistry. Following these
meetings, several curricular changes were agreed to in the Dentistry program. The requirement
by Dentistry for preparation in human physiology was resolved by agreement that prospective
dentistry students could complete a human physiology course as a prerequisite course for
admission. Additional information is provided in the attached materials.
ATTACHMENTS:
Background information:
Dentistry admission qualifications and selection criteria as of October, 2013 [pages 1-3]
Proposal documentation:
1. Proposal for addition of human physiology to required pre-dentistry courses [pages 4 to 12]
2. Proposal for three 30-credit-unit years and for criminal record check [pages 13-19]
49
2014-2015 Admission Requirements
•
BIOL 121.3 or BIOL 224.3 or BMSC 224.3- General Biology
- General Chemistry I
-Introduction to Organic Chemistry
117.3 or 125.3- General Physics (formerly 111.6 or PHYS 121.6)
Blomolecules (formerly BlOC 200.3)
- MetaQollsm (formerly BlOC 211.3)
(full course equivalent) in Social Sciences/Humanities are University of Saskatchewan courses: equivalents from other post-secondary institutions
•
of university
level workaverage
within of
two
standard
termsyears.
(30 credit
units taken
unitsApril)
between s•ttarnbltrwith a minimum
75%
in two academic
best 30-credit
IMPORTANT
NOTIQ!:
ttte
years of
admission
Collep of Dentistry has requested the approval of the University of Saskatchewan to chan1•
for admission to require applicants to have completed three full time (30 credit unit)
laval course work towards a decree procram between September and April prior to
for the 2015-2016 admission cycle. The results of this request will be posted to the
as they are available
•
•
1.
2.
•
•
•
naGIUIII& Comprehension (1/3)
Acitderftlc Average (1/3)
AbiUty (1/3)
3.
STUDENT AND ENROLMENT SERVICES DIVISION
I
IWUNIVERSITY OF
. , SASKATCHEWAN
50
Categories of Applicants
The College of Dentistry welcomes applications from all students. Of the 28 first-year spots,
Saskatchewan residents, including 3 spaces for persons of Aboriginal descent. The other 6
other applicants, regardless of residency.
1.
Saskatchewan Residents
•
•
2.
There are up to 6 spaces set aside for non-SK residents, either out of province ....u .........l.
international.
Aboriginal Equity Access Program
•
•
•
•
4.
Applicants must be Canadian citizens or landed immigrants at the time of apf:>licatijan.
Applicants normally must have resided in Saskatchewan for at least four years immtl!dl~•t&llv
September 1't of the year in which admission is being sought. Applicants who left
previously lived in Saskatchewan for an accumulated period of 15 years loll•rmantu•«
treated as residents. Applicants who have previously lived in-Saskatchewan for an .,.,,ounrnua.-.m
of less than 15 years and who do not qualify under the four-year condition will
year toward the four year requirement for every four years of residency in the nrl'tllli!ll'a.
exceptions to the four-year Saskatchewan residency rule.
Canadian and International Applicants
•
3.
are open to all
There is a separate category in which three first year spaces are reserved for n•r·sort&
Aboriginal ancestry.
Applicants must meet the minimum Admission Qualifications, above.
Applicants must achieve an acceptable rating on the interview and complete the
(OAT).
Applicants must provide proof of Aboriginal ancestry.
Forel1n Trained Dentists
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
There is a separate category in which ONE first year space is reserved for a foreign
dentist. Applicants in this stream will compete in a separate pool for this position.
Applicants must have earned a dental degree from a recognized dental college nTrlarlTnan Canada or
the United States of America.
Applicants must meet the Saskatchewan residency rules
If applicable, applicants must present satisfactory evidence of proficiency in English.
Applicants must take the Dental Aptitude Test (OAT) administered by the Canadian
Applicants must be interviewed at the University of Saskatchewan for the year in
being sought.
Applicants must provide a one•page biography (curriculum vita) on relevant dental "'"'''"'ril"'"''""'" and
other information that would be helpful to the Admissions Committee
STUDENT AND ENROLMENT SERVICES DIVISION
UNIVERSITY OF
SAsKATCHEWAN
51
'
s. ;iJt~J~1Qs~ _Ca!Um
•
•
The College of Dentistry may consider students with special circumstances with regard to one or both of
the 30 ~redit unit years, such that one or both years may have been completed over twelve consecutive
month$ as part of a program requirement.
All "sp~cial case" applicants will be considered by the Admissions Committee and will compete with all
other applicants in the general pool of candidates. Applicants must have met all other
requirements. Applicants are to submit a letter with their application form that explains their special
circum~tances.
Dean's Signature:
Date:
STUDENT AND ENROLMENT SERVICES DIVISION
1
m,.' UNIVERSITY oF
'IJI SASKATCHEWAN
52
Proposal for Academic
or Curricular Change
1. PROPOSAL IDENTIFICATION
Title of proposal:
Addition of human physiology as an admission requirement for the DMD program
Degree(s):
Doctor of Dental Medicine (DMD)
Field(s) of Specialization:
Dentistry
Degree College:
Dentistry
Contact person(s) (name, telephone, fax, e-mail):
Dr. Garnet Packota, Acting Associate Dean, garnet.packota@usask.ca, 966-5068
Ms. Kelly Mulligan, Director of Academic & Student Affairs, kelly.mulligan@usask.ca, 966-2760
Proposed date of implementation:
2015-2016 Academic Year (admissions August 2015)
Proposal
The College of Dentistry is requesting approval to include human physiology (such as PHSI 208
Human Body Systems or its equivalent) as a required prerequisite course for admission into the
DMD program.
3. RATIONALE
The rationale for this change is a result of the implementation of the new curriculum in the
College of Medicine. Currently, Year 1 dental students receive instruction in human physiology
through inclusion in the MED 109 Form & Function of the Human Body course offered in Year 1
of the UGME program. As a result of the new medical curriculum, the MED 109 course will no
longer be offered and the human physiology component of the replacement course (MEDC 115)
is not sufficient to meet our needs. The option of adding the PHSI 208 course to our program
was explored but the current course structure does not work with our Year 1 timetable, primarily
due to the timing of the MEDC 115 replacement course that our students will take. We were
advised that the course structure of PHSI 208 cannot be changed due to commitments with the
College of Nursing and the College of Pharmacy & Nutrition. As a result there is the need for a
human physiology course to be a prerequisite.
4. DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM CHARACTERISTICS
Not applicable. The DMD program is an established degree program. Proposed change is for
an existing policy.
5. RESOURCES
Not applicable. Additional resources are not required.
53
6. RELATIONSHIPS AND IMPACT OF IMPLEMENTATION
1. Impact on Departmental Activities
Not applicable. The proposed change will not impact any departmental activities.
2. Impact on Students/Applicants
The proposed change to add a human physiology course as a required prerequisite for
admission to the DMD program will not have significant impact on applicants. Although it will be
an additional prerequisite course, it is currently a recommended course that approximately 20%
of applicants already take. In addition, many students complete degrees (~20% over the past
five years), or portions of degrees, in Physiology prior to admission, as students interested in
dentistry are encouraged to pursue degrees in the natural sciences. Removal of physiology
from the DMD program will also open up the heavy Year 1 timetable to allow room for much
needed independent study time as well as enable to College of Dentistry to focus on curriculum
unique to dentistry.
3. Impact on Other Colleges/Departments
The impact of this proposed change will affect the College of Arts and Science in that additional
students will be registering for the Physiology course. However, as previously mentioned,
physiology is currently a recommended course for admission and some students already pursue
degrees in Physiology (~20% over the past five years) so the impact is anticipated to be
minimal. We have discussed this option with Dr. Michel Desautels, Department Head of
Physiology, and he is supportive of this proposal.
7. BUDGET
Not applicable. Budgetary changes are not required for the proposed change.
College Statement
The College of Dentistry is requesting approval to include a human physiology course (PHSI
208 or its equivalent) as a required prerequisite course for admission to the DMD program
effective the 2015-2016 admissions cycle. As a result of the revisions to the College of
Medicine’s UGME curriculum, teaching in physiology that has been traditionally provided to
dental students will be drastically reduced. As a result, the College of Dentistry is required to
find an alternate way to ensure dental students have a strong foundation in physiology.
In discussions between the College of Medicine and the College of Dentistry, it was determined
that the most effective strategy is to require human physiology as a prerequisite to the program
rather than a recommended course. The College of Dentistry presented the proposed change
to the admission requirements to the Admissions Committee for a vote and the majority of the
committee members voted in favour.
The prerequisite course requirements of other Canadian dental programs were reviewed and it
was found that only two other schools out of eight English speaking schools require prerequisite
course work in physiology. However, many of the other dental schools in Canada are closely
linked with the Faculties of Medicine at their institutions and are able to take advantage of the
basic science teaching available with such a relationship similar to what has traditionally been
done in the past at the UofS.
In addition, the College of Dentistry has also submitted a proposal requesting approval for other
changes to the admission requirements (minimum of three years of predentistry course work
towards a degree and criminal record check), which is currently being reviewed by the
Academic Programs Committee. If both proposals are approved, the intent is that the changes
from both would be effective at the same time for the 2015-2016 admissions cycle.
54
Dentistry and the Proposed 2+2 Curriculum Required for the November 21st University Council meeting: a one-­‐page “Summary of associated changes to the Dentistry curriculum”. College of Medicine understanding to date: 1. Inclusion in the new UGME course, MEDC 115.18 Principles in Biomedical Science starting August, 2014 for 1 term (replacing DENT 294 Form and Function of the Human Body for Dental Students) 2. Removal of: DENT 292 General Pathology; DENT 293 Introductory Neuroanatomy; DENT391 Pharmacology. 3. Microbiology content in Principles course may not suffice for Dental students. Updated November 20, 2014 Dr. Ken Sutherland, Acting Dean and Kelly Mulligan met with Dr. Colum Smith, Acting Dean of Medicine on November 20, 2014. Dr. Smith advised that the College of Medicine will honour all existing teaching commitments following the implementation of the 2+2 curriculum. All proposed solutions were reviewed and deemed reasonable and acceptable. Dr. Smith requested that Kelly contact the respective Department Heads to work out the arrangements. Any challenges that cannot be resolved should be directed to Dr. Gill White, Acting Vice-­‐Dean of Education, College of Medicine. Possible options for Dentistry students: Neuroanatomy: 1. Inclusion in preexisting undergraduate courses: PTH 818.3 Functional Neuroanatomy for Physical Therapy Students OR ACB 334.3 Introductory Neuroanatomy designed mainly for non-­‐
medical undergraduate students. 2. Create a modified version of PTH 818.3 for Dent students (the instructor Dr. Tom Langer is willing to do this but the issue of how he is paid for the extra course needs to be resolved) Updated November 27, 2013 The College of Dentistry has chosen to add the ACB 334 – Introductory Neuroanatomy course to the Year 1 curriculum to replace the DENT 293 Introductory Neuroanatomy course. The Department of Anatomy & Cell Biology was very flexible with the scheduling of the course and accommodated a change required for the course to fit in the Year 1 Dentistry timetable. Pharmacology: 1. Inclusion in preexisting undergraduate course Updated November 27, 2013 55
Dentistry students require a full course in Pharmacology. The preexisting PCOL 350 course in the Pharmacy program would be suitable as it covers all relevant content. However, the timing of this course does not fit with the Year 2 dentistry timetable due to clinic/lab times and would require extensive disruptions. If the timing of this course offering is flexible and we could negotiate to work with our timetable, we would pursue this option. 2. Create a specific course just for Dent students (DENT 391) (Department head would prefer the inclusion in a current course) If the timing of the PCOL 350 course is not flexible or we can’t work out a time that works for both Pharmacy and Dentistry, this would be the only option. Updated November 20, 2014 Received commitment from the College of Medicine that the Pharmacology teaching will be delivered through either of the above options, depending on timetabling. Details will be worked out at a later date as the impact of this change is not until the 2015/2016 academic year. Microbiology: 1. Inclusion in preexisting undergraduate course 2. Create a specific course just for Dent students (Department head is willing to talk about this) Dental students currently take the first 8 weeks (~24 hours) of Microbiology with the medical students in MED 203 and then transition to a Dent only microbiology course. The new Principles in Medical Science will provide only 4 hours of teaching and thus we will require additional teaching in the following areas as the bare minimum: Options could certainly be inclusion in an existing microbiology course for these specific areas or having faculty from Medicine guest lecture in the Dent microbiology course for he identified topics. Inclusion in an existing microbiology course would be dependent upon review of the timing of the course and if it could be worked into our timetable. Updated November 20, 2014 The following lectures have been identified as being required for Dentistry students. •
•
•
•
•
•
•
The biology of microorganisms. How Do Bugs Cause Disease?
How Do You Know You Have an Infection
How Do You Use Antibiotics?
How do you diagnose Infectious Diseases?
Antiviral Therapy
Antifungal Therapy
Toxin-mediated diseases
Updated November 27, 2013 56
The above mentioned topics will be rolled into the existing DENT 306 course and microbiology faculty from the College of Medicine (clinical and/or basic science) will guest lecture in the course to deliver the content. Proposed that Dentistry will compensate the guest faculty at the College of Medicine Part Time Faculty teaching rate (rate to change annually). Details will be worked out at a later date as the impact of this change is not until the 2015/2016 academic year. Pathology: Unsure of Dentistry plans for this topic. Updated November 20, 2014 The Pathology topics outlined for the Principles of Medical Science course are very similar to what is currently being taught in the MED 102 General Pathology course and are sufficient for our needs. No further instruction in Pathology is required. Physiology Notified November 4th, 2013 that Physiology content will not suffice within our new curriculum so an option for this to be covered in another way becomes urgent. Dentistry requires a human body system physiology course to cover normal functioning of all body systems. Two pre-­‐existing courses exist, PHSI 208 for Nursing and PHSI 208 for Arts and Science. Dr. Desautels, DH for Physiology advised that both iterations of the course are multi-­‐term 6 credit courses offered in T1&T2. This does not work for the Dentistry timetable due to the Medicine Principles of Medical Science course in Term 1. If we opt out of the Principles course to take PHSI 208, we lose other required content in genetics, nutrition, immunology, pathology etc. that would be much more difficult to obtain through other courses. Dr. Desautels advised that a course specifically for dentistry in term 2 of the 2014-­‐2015 academic year is required. Work is underway to recruit an instructor to be in place for January 2015. Updated November 27, 2013 57
Approval by Admissions Committee Committee Membership G. Packota (Acting Assoc Dean) – yes K. Sutherland (Acting Dean) R. Wright (Fac Rep) J. Monteith (Fac Rep) D. Anholt (Fac Rep) – seconder; yes L. Shepard (UofS Registrar designate) – yes B. White (Registrar, CDSS) – yes B. Thibodeau (Part Time Fac Rep) – mover and yes D. Briere (Student Rep) K. Mulligan (DASA; non voting) M. McCormick (Recording Secretary; non voting) Good Morning Admissions Committee, I hope this email finds you well. As many of you are likely aware, the College of Medicine is implementing a new curriculum in the Fall of 2014. As a result, there will be significant impacts to the courses that the College of Medicine offers to our dental students. One of the major impacts is a drastic reduction in the physiology teaching that will be provided in Year 1. As a result, the College of Dentistry is required to find alternate ways to ensure dental students have a solid foundation in physiology. In discussions between the College of Medicine and Dentistry, it has been determined that the most effective strategy is to require physiology as a prerequisite course instead of a recommended course. The support of the Admissions Committee is very important for the final decision. Below is a motion to include physiology as a required pre-­‐req for admission. We require a mover, seconder and then overall vote. Please respond ASAP as we are required to submit our paperwork by Dec 2. MOTION: That Physiology be a required prerequisite course for admission to the College of Dentistry effective the 2015-­‐2016 admission cycle. Kind Regards, Kelly Kelly Mulligan Director of Academic & Student Affairs College of Dentistry Ph: (306) 966-­‐2760 Fax: (306) 966-­‐5126 Email: kelly.mulligan@usask.ca 58
Dentistry
In the first year and a half of the four-year dental program, the basic science courses are closely
integrated, physically and academically, with those of the College of Medicine.
Students must successfully complete all courses in a given year in the program to progress to the
next year and to graduate.
Program Requirements
Doctor of Dental Medicine (D.M.D.) (total 203 credit units)
Year 1
47 credit units 50 credit units
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
DENT 208.3
DENT 210.2
DENT 214.2
DENT 220.6
DENT 221.2
DENT 225.2
DENT 226.3
DENT 288.3
DENT 292.1
DENT 293.4 ACB 334.3
DENT 294.19
DENT 291.18 (new course, see outline below)
PHSI 208.6
Year 2
48 credit units
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
DENT 301.2
DENT 306.6
DENT 310.2
DENT 314.3
DENT 317.3
DENT 319.4
DENT 320.5
DENT 321.2
DENT 324.3
DENT 330.5
DENT 340.4
DENT 348.3
59
•
•
DENT 353.2
DENT 391.4
Year 3
56 credit units
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
DENT 401.3
DENT 417.4
DENT 419.5
DENT 420.5
DENT 424.4
DENT 430.6
DENT 440.5
DENT 448.3
DENT 450.5
DENT 455.2
DENT 463.3
DENT 466.2
DENT 475.4
DENT 480.2
DENT 486.3
Year 4
49 credit units
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
DENT 501.2
DENT 517.4
DENT 519.5
DENT 520.3
DENT 524.4
DENT 530.5
DENT 540.5
DENT 542.2
DENT 548.3
DENT 550.3
DENT 563.3
DENT 575.3
DENT 580.2
DENT 585.5
New Course:
DENT 291.18 (with all details to follow)
60
December 6, 2013
Ms. Cathie Fornssler,
Academic Program Committee of University Council,
University of Saskatchewan
Dear Ms. Fornssler,
I received a request from the College of Dentistry for confirmation that a 6cu Physiology course will be
available as a prerequisite for admission to the DMD program effective 2015-16. We receive a similar request
from the College of Pharmacy and Nutrition that PHSI208.6 (Human Body Systems) which is currently a
course requirement in the Pharmacy and Nutrition programs to become a prerequisite course for admission
to the revised program in Pharmacy, while remaining a course requirement in Nutrition. At the moment, we
have two sections of PHSI208.6, one reserved for students in Pharmacy and Nutrition and one section
reserved for students in the College of Nursing. The latter section is provided in “distributed education”
mode to students in Saskatoon and four other sites across the Province of Saskatchewan.
It is our intention to lift the restriction on section 1 of PHSI208.6 to allow all students needing 6cu of Human
Physiology and Anatomy as prerequisite for admission to Dentistry, Pharmacy and other Health related
Professional Colleges access to this course.
If you need further information, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Best regards,
M. Desautels, Ph.D.
Professor and Head,
(306) 966 6538
michel.desautels@usask.ca
61
Proposal for Academic
or Curricular Change
1. PROPOSAL IDENTIFICATION
Title of proposal: College of Dentistry Admission Requirement Changes
Degree(s): Doctor of Dental Medicine (DMD)
Field(s) of Specialization: Dentistry
Degree College: Dentistry
Contact person(s) (name, telephone, fax, e-mail):
1. Dr. Ken Sutherland, Acting Dean, ken.sutherland@usask.ca; 306-966-5088
2. Kelly Mulligan, kelly.mulligan@usask.ca; 306-966-2760
Proposed date of implementation: 2015-2016 Admissions Cycle [for admissions August 2015]
Proposal Document
3. RATIONALE
1. The College of Dentistry is requesting approval to change the admission requirements
such that applicants are required to complete three full 30 credit unit years of university
course work leading to an undergraduate level degree as a condition of admission.
The rationale for this change is as follows:
1. To better align the College with the offer dates of other English speaking Canadian
dental schools. Currently the UofS College of Dentistry is the second to last dental
school to offer seats in a dental program. As a result, many of the top ranked students
have already accepted offers at other institutions (6 declined offers to interview and
several declined offers for this reason). Requiring three years of university course work
will enable us to make our offers earlier in the admission cycle based on years without
the need to wait for final grades to be submitted during the year in which admission is
being sought.
2. To better align the College with the admission practices of other English speaking
Canadian dental schools. The admission requirements of dental schools across
62
Canada were examined and it was determined that four of eight schools require three or
more years of university course work prior to admission, two of which require the
completion of a degree program. In addition, other professional programs at the UofS
are moving towards increasing their required pre-admission course work. The College
of Medicine now requires the completion of a degree for entry into medicine.
3. To provide a more mature applicant pool with a greater likelihood of success.
Requiring three full years of university course work will level the playing field of all
applicants as very few applicants are successfully admitted by meeting the current
minimum requirement of two full ears of university course work. Over the past five
years, 83% of students accepted into the program have had a minimum of three years of
university; 61% of those have had four or more years with 32% having had completed a
degree.
4. To encourage planning of alternative career options for applicants. The College of
Dentistry receives over 400 applications for the 29 seats available in the program.
Consequently, less than 10% of applicants get accepted into dental school each year.
Adding the condition that the 3 years of university level coursework must be towards a
degree program will result in unsuccessful applicants being that much closer to having
completed the requirements of a degree which provides a broader spectrum of available
career opportunities.
2. The College of Dentistry is requesting approval to change the admission requirements
to include submission of a Criminal Record Check (CRC) as a condition of admission.
The rationale for this change is as follows:
1. To align the College of Dentistry with the requirements of the dental licensing
bodies across Canada. The College of Dental Surgeons of Saskatchewan (CDSS) as
well as most other provincial dental licensing bodies requires completion of a CRC as a
condition of licensure. As a result, it is important for the College of Dentistry to only
admit applicants to the program who are able to complete their degree and be
successfully licensed to practice dentistry in Canada. An applicant with serious criminal
history/charges may not be licensable under provincial regulations and thus should not
enter the program.
2. Patient Safety. A significant portion of the dental program involves students treating
patients in the clinic setting. This can and does involve treatment of vulnerable
individuals, which requires a significant amount of trust on the part of the patient in the
student. All patients are entitled to receiving care in a safe environment and a CRC will
ensure this.
3. To better align the College with the admission practices of other English speaking
Canadian dental schools. The admission requirements of dental schools across
Canada were examined and it was determined that three of eight schools require that
applicants submit a CRC as a condition of admission.
63
4. To better align the College with the admission practices of other health sciences
programs at the UofS. The College of Nursing and more recently, the College of
Medicine, require applicant to complete a CRC upon admission.
4. DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM CHARACTERISTICS
Not applicable. The DMD program is an established degree program. Proposed changes are
for existing policies.
5. RESOURCES
Not applicable. Additional resources are not required for the proposed changes.
6. RELATIONSHIPS AND IMPACT OF IMPLEMENTATION
1. Impact on Departmental Activities
Not applicable. The proposed changes will not impact any departmental activities.
2. Impact on Students/Applicants
The proposed change to increase the number of required years of university course work will
not have a significant impact on students applying to the dental program. As previously
mentioned, 83% of students accepted into the program over the past five have had a minimum
of three years of university level course work which means that this change will affect a small
percentage of students. At the same time, an extra year of study will better prepare students to
be successful in the program and on the same level as the majority of other applicants accepted
into the program.
Requiring that the course work be towards a degree program is a benefit to applicants. As
previously mentioned, seats in a dental program are highly competitive with many more
applications received than spots available. Having course work towards a degree program will
broader the students’ career opportunities and ensure that applicants have a back-up plan
should they not be successful at being accepted into a dental program.
The proposed change to require a Criminal Record Check (CRC) benefits students as well as
patients being treated by students. A CRC is required for licensure in many Canadian provinces
and accepting and graduating a student from a dental program who is not able to obtain a
license is not good for either the student or the program. Patient safety must be a priority and a
CRC will ensure that all patients receive care in a safe environment.
3. Impact on other Colleges/Departments
Given that the majority of applicants accepted into the program already have at least three
years of university level course work, consultation with other Colleges/Departments was not
done. Discussions took place at length with the College of Medicine, which advised that all
Colleges surveyed across campus for their move to requiring a degree unanimously agreed with
the proposal and had no concerns. Students completing pre-dentistry requirements in other
Colleges will actually be more engaged in the courses if they are working towards a goal
(completion of a degree) rather than a collection of courses with no purpose..
7. BUDGET
Not applicable. Budgetary changes are not required for the proposed changes.
64
College Statement
The College of Dentistry is requesting approval for two changes to be implemented for the
2015-2016 admissions cycle: (1) increasing the admission requirement from two 30 credit unit
years of university course work to three years that must be towards a degree program; (2)
requiring applicants to submit a Criminal Record Check (CRC) as a condition of admission. The
proposed changes were reviewed extensively and approved at three College Level Committees,
Admissions Committee, Undergraduate Education Committee, and Executive Committee.
Please see attached documentation for these discussions/decisions. The proposed changes
will not be effective until the 2015-2016 admissions cycle to allow potential applicants time to
plan for the change. Notice of the impending change has been posted to the College of
Dentistry website.
Admissions policies of other dental programs were reviewed and it was determined that the
College of Dentistry would be much better aligned with those practices by implementing the
proposed changes. In addition, the proposed changes are in the best interests of the
applicants. Increasing the prerequisite course work requirement levels the playing field and
gives applicants an extra year of academic course work at a higher level to better prepare them
for the rigorous demands of a dental program. Requiring that the course work be towards a
degree program offers a broader choice of career options should the applicant not be successful
at entering dentistry. Requiring a CRC ensures patient safety and that a student is eligible for
licensure at the end of the program.
Related Documentation
Letters of support – Saskatchewan Dental Students Society; College of Dental
Surgeons of Saskatchewan
Comparison with admission requirements of other dental colleges
Consultation Forms
Required for all submissions:
□ Consultation with the Registrar form [submitted]
65
November23, 2013
We the SDSS (Saskatchewan Dental Students Society) are in agreement with
the College of Dentistry’s proposed changes for the 2015-2016 admissions cycle.
1) Increasing the admission requirement from two 30 credit unit years of
University course work to three years that must be towards a degree
program.
2) Requiring applicants to submit a Criminal Record Check as a condition of
admission.
Wood
Vice-president
66
November 21, 2013 Dr. Roy Dobson C/o Cathy Fornsseler Committee Coordinator Office of the University Secretary 218 Peter McKinnon Building University of Saskatchewan Saskatoon, SK S7N 5A2 Dear Dr. Dobson; The College of Dental Surgeons of Saskatchewan (CDSS) has had representation on the College of Dentistry Admissions Committee throughout the discussion of these proposals and has reviewed the document ‘Proposal for Academic or Curricular Change’ relating to application for the College of Dentistry DMD Program. The CDSS fully supports the proposals in the above document. Sincerely, Dr. Bernie White Registrar BEW/ml 67
Survey
Questions
Alberta
British Columbia
For entry to 2012-2013
first year class,
November 2, 2012
application on-line,
http://www.dentistry.ubc.
ca
Minimum 3 years preadmission + 4 program =
minimum 7 years total
APPLICATION TIMELINE, METHODS AND STATISTICS
Length of Degree
Program
Application and
Document Deadlines
Minimum 2 years
Preprofessional study
plus 4 years in DDS
program = 6 years
minimum
November 1 Application
deadline; November 15
grades to date & Fall
term registration;
February 1 Fall term
grades and Winter term
registration;
June 15 final transcripts,
all required admission
documents.
Dalhousie
Laval (French)
2 pre-admission + 4
program = 6 yr total
Manitoba
McGill
1- year Dental
Preparatory Program and
4-year DMD Program = 5
yrs total
Montreal (French)
January 15;
Documents - February
1st
2 pre-admission + 4
program = 6 yrs total
Saskatchewan
December 2, 2013 applications and
documents.
3 pre-admission + 4
program = 7 yrs total
Toronto
December 1;
final transcripts - June 15.
4 pre-admission (degree
required) + 4 program = 8
yrs*
Western
19
4 years
4 pre-admission (degree
required) + 4 program =
8 yrs total
February 1st for
University candidate
March 1st for College
graduates (CEGEP)
Paper format
On-line application – link
only accessible from
Schulich Dentistry
website:
http://www.schulich.uwo.c
a/dentistry/ddsadmissions
Early June
End of May
End of June
Written & On Line
March 1
Pre-admission years are
not university based
January 21, 2013
See website:
http://umanitoba.ca/stude
nt/admissions/application
/programs/dentistryapplication.html
January 15 - Quebec;
November 15 - Out-ofprovince;
documents required by
these deadlines;
final transcripts by June
30;
Four re-applications
permitted coinciding with
academic progress.
March 1st for CEGEP
applicants.
Mid-May
Survey of Canadian Dental Schools, 2012-2013 – Response Summary
2 pre-admission + 4
program = 6 yrs total
December 1;
Documents - February 1;
Final transcripts - May 1.
Online and paper
End of April
Mid-March
On line only
Applicants apply online
at
http://www.usask.ca/dent
istry/admissions/apply_o
nline.php?heading=menu
Admissions
May
Online application only.
Online and Written
applications are
accepted.
Motivation letters are
web-based (online) only.
Mid-June
DDS - 479 IDAPP - 127
DDS - 507 applicants:
262 Females/245 Males
ITD - 170
Offers of Admission
Application Methods
Online application
http://www.mcgill.ca/denti
stry/prospective/undergra
d/application-procedures
Early May
first year admissions:
403 (2012 2013
application cycle)
Admission Application
Statistics
Total number of
application for Sept
2012: 618
On-line application only;
no paper applications
accepted
End of March
A total of 742
applications were
received for academic
year 2011-12.
Applications rec'd: 361
(DMD Program only)
Applications rec'd: 69
(IDDCP Program only)
Applications rec'd: 186
(Dental Hygiene Program
only)
52 available for Canadian
applicants;
up to 4 for international
applicants.
A total of 456
applications were
received for the Fall 2012
term.
Dental Hygiene - 183
apps
DDS – 399 apps
Advanced Placement 56 apps
Limited to 64 Canadian
or permanent residents;
maximum of 10% of
places may be offered to
out-of-province
applicants; up to 6
international applicants if
applicant can obtain a
student authorization.
Yes
361 to the DMD Program
and
95 to the Dental
Preparatory Program
1st year DMD
admissions:
285 apps for 29 positions
1st year DH
admissions:
62 apps for 26 positions
1st year IDDP (qualify
program)
131 apps for 7 positions
Up to 35. Most seats are
for recognised Quebec
residents, but we do
consider applicants from
other provinces and
countries.
A total of 90 seats are
available for admission to
preparatory year.
Seats available for
French-speaking New
Brunswick residents (a
total of 5 for Montreal
and Laval universities).
Seats available for
French-speaking Ontario
residents (a total of 5 for
Montreal and Laval
universities).
No
Limited to 29;
(with a 25 dedicated
spaces for Manitobans,
will consider out-ofprovince applicants for
the 4 remaining spaces if
competitive)
No
Limited to 28; 22
allocated to
Saskatchewan applicants
(19 to top ranking
Saskatchewan
applicants;
3 to the Aboriginal
Access Program;
1 to a foreign trained
dentist).
6 to all other applicants
(out of province,
Saskatchewan residents
not in the top ranking,
and International).
No
Limited to 48 seats by
University Council.
Priority is given to
Quebec residents, some
seats available for NewBrunswick residents (5 in
all for Montreal and
Quebec city), some seats
available for Ontario
residents.
Yes
Total applications to:
Dental Hygiene
= 79 (class size = 32)
Qualifying Program
= 130 (class size = 9)
Dentistry
= 387 (class size = 38)
ADMISSION SEATS AND ELIGIBILITY
Quota
No
Up to 38;
preference given to
residents of Atlantic
provinces but will
consider well qualified
applicants from other
provinces and countries.
Limited to 32;
selected on a competitive
basis; 85% of places for
Alberta residents, 5% for
International, 10% to
other Canadians
No
Yes
Limited to 48;
No international
applicants considered;
must be Canadian
citizens or permanent
residents.
Criminal Record Check
68
AGENDA ITEM NO: 9.4
UNIVERSITY OF SASKATCHEWAN
UNIVERSITY SENATE
ITEM FOR CONFIRMATION
PRESENTED BY:
Jay Kalra, Chair, University Council
DATE OF MEETING:
April 26, 2014
SUBJECT:
College of Medicine: change to admission qualifications
DECISION REQUESTED:
It is recommended:
That Senate confirm the revision to the College of Medicine
admissions qualifications to include as an admissions
requirement for the Medical College Admissions Test (MCAT)
of all Saskatchewan residents who apply for entrance into
medicine effective for applicants as of October 2015.
PURPOSE:
The University of Saskatchewan Act states that decisions regarding admission qualifications and
enrolment quotas for university programs are to be approved by Council and confirmed by
University Senate.
SUMMARY:
At its meeting on January 23, 2014, University Council approved an admission requirement for
admittance for the Medical College Admissions Test (MCAT) of all Saskatchewan residents who
apply for entrance into medicine. Non-Saskatchewan residents already require the MCAT to apply
for entrance into medicine.
The MCAT has now been revised to incorporate the following areas of knowledge: Biological and
Biochemical Foundations of Living Systems; Chemical and Physical Foundations of Biological
Systems; Psychological, Social, and Biological Foundations of Behavior; and Critical Analysis
and Reasoning Skills. As such, the revamped MCAT adds new coverage of knowledge in the
humanities, social sciences, and statistics, as well as better assessing the integration of biological
and physical sciences knowledge as related to the study and practice of medicine.
The college now proposes to use the new MCAT as an admission qualification for all students, to
replace the requirement that Saskatchewan students studying at the U of S or the University of
Regina present a list of prerequisite courses.
The college will also use the MCAT score as a component in the admissions score: half of the
score will be based on non-cognitive assessment (the interview); 30 per cent on the student’s grade
1
69
point average of all courses taken up to the award of their four-year baccalaureate, and 20 per cent
on the MCAT score.
ATTACHMENTS:
Academic programs committee report to University Council of January, 2014 and proposal
documentation from the College of Medicine.
2
70
ATTACHMENT: Academic programs committee report to University Council
of January, 2014 and proposal documentation from the College of Medicine.
AGENDA ITEM NO: 9.3
UNIVERSITY COUNCIL
ACADEMIC PROGRAMS COMMITTEE
REQUEST FOR DECISION
PRESENTED BY:
Roy Dobson, Chair, Academic Programs Committee of Council
DATE OF MEETING:
January 23, 2014
SUBJECT:
College of Medicine – change to admission qualifications
DECISION REQUESTED:
It is recommended:
That Council approve the College of Medicine admission
qualification requirement for the Medical College Admissions Test
(MCAT) of all Saskatchewan residents who apply for entrance into
medicine effective for applicants as of October 2015.
PURPOSE:
Under the University of Saskatchewan Act 1995, decisions regarding admission qualifications
and enrolment quotas for university programs are to be approved by Council and confirmed by
Senate. Admission qualifications are defined in the Admissions Policy as follows:
These are the credentials that an applicant must present in order to establish eligibility
for admission. They include but are not restricted to objective qualifications such as high
school subjects, secondary or post-secondary standing, minimum averages, English
proficiency, and minimum scores on standardized tests. Qualifications may vary for some
admission categories.
The motions if approved by Council will be presented to the Spring, 2014 meeting of University
Senate for confirmation.
SUMMARY:
Candidates for Medicine are selected by the Admissions Committee of the College of Medicine
on the basis of rank order of competitiveness and consideration of information pertinent to
individual applicants. The college calculates an admissions rank number for each applicant.
At present, for Saskatchewan students, this score is based on 65 percent non-cognitive
assessments (admission interview), and 35 per cent grade point average (GPA) which students
have achieved their best two years of study towards a degree. For non-Saskatchewan students,
provided their average GPA in courses taken during their four-year baccalaureate degree is equal
to or greater than 83%, selection for an interview is based on their Medical College Admission
Test (MCAT) score, with final selection for entrance to medicine based 100% on their interview
score.
71
The MCAT has now been revised to incorporate the following areas of knowledge: Biological
and Biochemical Foundations of Living Systems; Chemical and Physical Foundations of
Biological Systems; Psychological, Social, and Biological Foundations of Behavior; and Critical
Analysis and Reasoning Skills. As such, the revamped MCAT adds new coverage of knowledge
in the humanities, social sciences, and statistics, as well as better assessing the integration of
biological and physical sciences knowledge as related to the study and practice of medicine.
The college now proposes to use the new MCAT as an admission qualification for all students, to
replace the requirement that Saskatchewan students studying at the U of S or the University of
Regina present a list of prerequisite courses.
The college will also use the MCAT score as a component in the admissions score: half of the
score will be based on non-cognitive assessment (the interview); 30 per cent on the student’s
grade point average of all courses taken up to the award of their four-year baccalaureate (which
is now required at entry to medicine), and 20 per cent on the MCAT score.
The following courses will be recommended as preparation for the MCAT, but will no longer be
required for admission to the Medicine program. Comparable MCAT preparations courses are
already recommended for all students studying outside of Saskatchewan, as they all already must
do the MCAT.
University of Saskatchewan
Biology 120 and either Biology 121 or
BIOL/BMSC 224
Chemistry 112 and 250
Physics 115 and 117
English 110 or any two of 111, 112, 113, 114
Social Science/Humanities – 6 cr.
Biomedical Science 200 and 230
University of Regina
Biology 100 and 101
Chemistry 104 and 140
Physics 109 and 119
English 100 and 110
Social Science/Humanities – 6 cr.
Biochemistry 220 and 221
REVIEW:
The Academic Programs Committee discussed this program with Admissions Director Dr. Barry
Ziola at its January 8, 2014 meeting. Prior to this discussion, the committee had also asked for
additional supporting documentation for the proposal:
- consultation with the College of Arts and Science and the Division of Biomedical
Sciences regarding enrolments in biomedical science courses;
- information about whether this change in admission qualifications would support college
accreditation; and
- a chart of how other U15 universities use the MCAT. This documentation was provided
to the committee.
At the meeting, Professor Ziola informed the committee that the MCAT 2015, as developed by
the American Association of Medical Colleges, represents a significant advance over the old test.
The Association has been briefing medical colleges for the last five years on its process of
revising the test. The old test covered only physical sciences, biological sciences and verbal
reasoning, while the new test uses a broader and more integrated approach.
72
Currently, the college already uses the MCAT for out-of-province students and for Saskatchewan
students who are not studying at the U of S or the University of Regina. For these students,
prerequisite classes already are not required, but are recommended as good preparation for
writing the MCAT.
Because the new MCAT now covers what the college is looking for in its students, the college
will now use the MCAT for all students, and, in the case of Saskatchewan students, will
incorporate these test results in their admissions rank score.
The college had considered implementing the MCAT revision last year, when the requirement
for a four-year degree was implemented. However the revisions to the MCAT has not been
completed at that time.
Professor Ziola noted that the four student representatives on the admissions committee and on
faculty council voted in favour of this change. The students were very supportive of using this
test as a more uniform and transparent basis for selection.
The Committee agreed to recommend that Council approve these admission qualification
changes.
ATTACHMENTS: Proposal documents and attachments; letters of consultation; chart of U15
Medicine admission requirements.
73
REPORT TO FACULTY COUNCIL
November 27, 2013
Approved Unanimously
NOTICE-OF-MOTION
That the College of Medicine require the Medical College Admissions Test (MCAT) of all
Saskatchewan residents who apply for entrance into medicine, with implementation of the
MCAT requirement based on the following five operational points.
[1] The MCAT will be required of all SK applicants as of the October 2015 application and
onwards, and the test must be written prior to the annual application date. MCAT2015 results
will be valid for five years as is the case for results in the current MCAT.
[2] With the MCAT being required of all SK residents, prerequisite course requirements will
be removed.
[3] MCAT results will be factored into the SK admission rank number (ARN) with a value of
20%, together with the four-year degree grade-point average (GPA) at 30% of the ARN and
the multiple mini-interview (MMI) at 50% of the ARN.
[4] The MCAT, whether the current or the 2015 version, will have minimum section scores as
follows. This assumes the MCAT2015 will use a maximum of 15 on each section similar to the
current MCAT (decision on this will occur in 2014).
•Current MCAT: Minimum sum score of 20 based on > 7 in the Biological Sciences and
Verbal Reasoning sections and > 6 in the Physical Sciences section.
•MCAT2015: Minimum sum score of 26 based on > 7 in the Biological and Biochemical
Foundations of Living Systems and the Critical Analysis and Reasoning Skills sections
and > 6 in the Chemical and Physical Foundations of Biological Systems and the
Psychological, Social, and Biological Foundations of Behavior section.
[5] As MCAT scores achieved within five years can be used for application, transitioning
between the current MCAT and the MCAT2015 will involve the sum of the current MCAT
scores being multiplied by 1.333 for purposes of integrating the MCAT results into the ARN
(i.e., 60 and 45 are the maximum scores on the MCAT2015 and the current MCAT,
respectively).
On behalf of the Admissions Committee,
Dr. Barry Ziola
Director of Admissions
74
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC) which administers the MCAT has taken
the past five or so years to review the current MCAT and to recommend changes which will align
the MCAT with requirements of medical students going out for the next two decades. The resultant
MCAT2015 will be administered beginning in January 2015. Both the current MCAT and the
MCAT2015 are computer-based tests administered on 20-some scheduled dates per year running between
January and mid September. An individual can register to take the test up to three times in a given calendar
year. Cost of the current MCAT is $USA270. The MCAT2015 registration fee is anticipated to be
$USA300-325.
The following websites provide relevant details for the MCAT2015. The current MCAT has three sections
entitled Physical Sciences, Biological Sciences, and Verbal Reasoning. In contrast, the MCAT2015
will have four sections entitled Biological and Biochemical Foundations of Living Systems;
Chemical and Physical Foundations of Biological Systems; Psychological, Social, and Biological
Foundations of Behavior; and Critical Analysis and Reasoning Skills. As such, the revamped
MCAT2015 adds new coverage of knowledge in the humanities, social sciences, and statistics, as well
as better assessing the integration of biological and physical sciences knowledge as related to the
study and practice of medicine. The Critical Analysis and Reasoning Skills section then tests the
integration of understanding in the other three sections into decision making. The revamped
MCAT2015 with the additional test section will be six hours in duration as compared four hours for
the current MCAT.
Preview Guide for the MCAT2015: www.aamc.org/mcat2015
Note that this guide is very detailed, running some 160 pages. If a shorter overview of the
MCAT2015 is desired, the following site is recommended. The power-point presentations linked at
the bottom of this webpage are particularly useful.
MCAT2015 web site for advisors: www.aamc.org/mcat2015/admins
MCAT2015 press release: www.aamc.org/newsroom/newsreleases/273712/120216.html
RATIONALE FOR MOVING TOWARDS REQUIRING THE MCAT OF ALL SK RESIDENTS
FOR ENTRANCE TO UNDERGRADUATE STUDIES IN MEDICINE AT THE U. OF S.
Point [1] The MCAT will be required of all SK applicants as of the October 2015 application and
onwards, and the test must be written prior to the annual application date. MCAT2015 results will be
valid for five years as is the case for results in the current MCAT.
Rationale: The earliest final approval of this admissions change could be obtained (i.e., from
the University Senate) is April 2014. Such final approval would allow potential applicants
approximately 17 months to write either the current or the MCAT2015 prior to application in
October 2015 for entrance in August 2016. Note that
Point [2] With the MCAT being required of all SK residents, prerequisite course requirements will
be removed.
Rationale: The MCAT, whether the current or 2015 test, is a validated standardized test
written each year by 80-90,000 individuals. MCAT and prerequisite results are highly
correlated, meaning they test essentially the same thing, namely, cognitive ability in relation to
75
being able to succeed in undergraduate medical training (i.e., particularly, the early didactic
lecture/foundational information years). As such, with the MCAT required of all, removal of
prerequisites can be done without any detrimental effect on the outcome of our selection
process. We already require the MCAT and do not look at prerequisite courses for all out-ofprovince applicants and for SK residents who are studying out-of-province. Also many SK
residents studying at the U. of R. or the U. of S. do the MCAT instead of prerequisites.
Moving to requiring the MCAT of all SK applicants will standardize our admissions process.
Removing the 12-prereqisite course requirement will also allow all SK applicants maximal
flexibility in planning their 4-year baccalaureate degree which is now required at entrance into
medicine as of August 2015 and onwards.
Two recent cohorts of SK residents coming into the College were analyzed as to whether
MCAT/no prerequisite students had a different incoming “best 2-year GPA” or Year 1 (phase
A) academic performance compared to students who came in with prerequisites/no MCAT.
The outcome of this analysis (done by and thanks to Ms. Krista Trinder) is presented
below. No difference in incoming 2-year GPA or Phase A performance was seen in either SK
student cohort. This indicates that uniformly applying the MCAT and removing prerequisites
will have no impact on the two analyzed attributes of each incoming class.
Comparisons in Performance for SK resident Medical Students who Wrote the MCAT
with Those who did Not
No MCAT
MCAT
Significance
MEAN SD
MEAN SD
Class of 2015
90.32 3.08
89.01 2.40
p = 0.23, d = 0.48
Entry GPA
Class of 2015
87.12 4.90
85.59 4.32
p = 0.38, d = 0.33
Phase A Average
Class of 2016
89.73 2.44
89.87 3.44
p = 0.86, d = -0.05
Entry GPA
Class of 2016
84.85 4.30
84.99 3.82
p = 0.92, d = -0.03
Phase A Average
Independent-samples t-tests were conducted to compare GPA upon admission and Phase A
average for students who wrote the MCAT with those who did not. Analyses were
conducted separately for the Classes of 2015 and 2016. For the Class of 2015, data from
59 students did not write the MCAT and 9 who did were analyzed. For the Class of 2016,
data from 78 students did not write the MCAT and 12 who did were compared. Effect sizes
(Cohen’s d) were also conducted as a practical measure of significance where 0.2 is
small, 0.5 is medium, and 0.8 is large.
Results indicated no statistically significant differences in performance between those who
wrote the MCAT with those who did not. Effect sizes were small, with extremely small
differences noted for the Class of 2016.
76
Lastly, requiring the MCAT and not prerequisites ensures that a validated, standardized test is
required of all SK applicants, ameliorating the situation with regard to three burgeoning sets
of students with interest in applying to medicine. First, the Admissions Office is increasingly
getting enquiries from students wanting to do or having done distance education being for the
course-work leading to degrees. Much of this distance education course-work in not
invigilated vis a vis examinations and the in-course assignments frankly can be done by
anyone. Second, students with International Transcripts are often difficult to evaluate as to
academic competency. Third, there is a move towards award of 4-year University degrees
based on a mix of university courses (often a preponderance of only first and second year
classes) with a technical school diploma. Requiring the MCAT will give a solid base-line
indication of academic (cognitive) ability for medicine applicants who achieve a four-year
degree through one of these three pathways.
Point [3] MCAT results will be factored into the SK admission rank number (ARN) with a value of
20%, together with the four-year degree grade-point average (GPA) at 30% of the ARN and the
multiple mini-interview (MMI) at 50% of the ARN.
Rationale: Incorporating the MCAT test results into our ARN is based on the view points of
the MCAT being required of all SK applicants, and the MCAT being a validated,
standardized, and widely-used test. Setting the MMI, GPA and MCAT components at values
of 50%, 30%, and 20%, respectively, means we are equalizing the weighting of the cognitive
and non-cognitive components of our admissions process.
Given the time commitment
required of a 4-year degree, weighting the GPA component more than the MCAT component
seems appropriate.
Point [4] The MCAT, whether the current or the 2015 version, will have a minimum section scores
as follows. This assumes the MCAT2015 will use a maximum of 15 on each section similar to the
current MCAT (decision on this will occur in 2014).
•Current MCAT: Minimum sum score of 20 based on > 7 in the Biological Sciences and Verbal
Reasoning sections and > 6 in the Physical Sciences section.
•MCAT2015: Minimum sum score of 26 based on > 7 in the Biological and Biochemical
Foundations of Living Systems and the Critical Analysis and Reasoning Skills sections and > 6
in the Chemical and Physical Foundations of Biological Systems and the Psychological,
Social, and Biological Foundations of Behavior section.
Rationale: If the MCAT results are to be incorporated into the ARN, the sum value used as a
cut-off for application should be lower than what is currently used in the case of the MCAT
results as a cut-score or hurdle for application (i.e., for SK residents doing the current MCAT
as an application hurdle must have a minimum sum score of 26 and each section score must be
> 8). With a 4-year degree required, fewer applications are expected (at least in the first few
years) than was the case with only best two years required for the GPA calculation. Too high
a MCAT minimum sum would lead to the undesirable consequence of constricting applicant
numbers further and perhaps too far. In the event the minimum sum and section scores prove
too low based on evaluation of applicants for entry in August 2016, the required minimum
sum and section scores can be then increased. Also, since the MCAT result will be scored, a
lower MCAT score will have to be offset by a higher GPA over the 4-year degree in order to
achieve entry to medicine, meaning a high level of cognitive ability in an applicant is still
assured. Lastly, using the combined section minimums of 6 and 7 still results in an applicant
being in approximately the top 65-70% of the individuals writing the MCAT each year. Using
section minimums of 7 rather than 6 for the “biology” and “reasoning” sections relates to
77
these two sections being more directly relevant to study and practice of medicine from a
general perspective.
Point [5] As MCAT scores achieved within five years can be used for application, transitioning
between the current MCAT and the MCAT2015 will involve the sum of the current MCAT scores
being multiplied by 1.333 for purposes of integrating the MCAT results into the ARN (i.e., 60 and
45 are the maximum scores on the MCAT2015 and the current MCAT, respectively).
Rationale: 60 divided by 45 = 1.333
78
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Ziola, Barry
Friday, January 03, 2014 3:26 PM
Fornssler, Cathie
Bueckert, Sherrill
FW: Accreditation and MCAT
Accreditation and MCAT.docx
Hi again,
Here is the document provided by Dr. Harding.
BZ
From: Harding, Sheila
Sent: Friday, December 06, 2013 1:45 PM
To: Ziola, Barry
Subject: Accreditation and MCAT
Dear Dr. Ziola, Attached please find my response to the second point raised by Cathie Fornssler in her email of December 2, 2013 concerning the MCAT motion that you have submitted to University Council/Academic Programs Committee for review. I would be pleased to respond to any accreditation‐related question(s) the council or committee might have. Sincerely, Sheila H. Sheila Rutledge Harding, MD, MA, FRCPC Associate Dean, Medical Education College of Medicine, University of Saskatchewan Administrative support c/o – Ms. Loreen Trautmann B526 Health Sciences Building 107 Wiggins Road Saskatoon SK S7N 5E5 306‐966‐8556 loreen.trautmann@usask.ca "To study the phenomena of disease without books is to sail an uncharted sea,
while to study books without patients is never to go to sea at all."
- Osler: Books and Men This email message may contain confidential and/or privileged information. It is intended only for the addressee(s). Any unauthorized disclosure is strictly
prohibited. If you are not a named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this email. Please notify the sender immediately by email if you have
received this email by mistake and delete this email from your system. Email transmissions cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error free as information could
be intercepted, corrupted, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept any liability for errors or omissions in the
contents of this message or any damages that arise as a result of email transmissions. 1
79
The accreditation issues that have resulted in the MD Program’s current (December 2013) probationary
status are not in any way related to our Admissions requirements or processes, apart from the
requirement that we notify applicants to the program about the probationary status. Indeed, the
replacement of a substantial number of prerequisite courses with the new MCAT will strengthen our
compliance with two standards that stipulate both the encouragement of a broad undergraduate
education for applicants to the program (MS-1), and the restriction of premedical course requirements
to those courses that are deemed truly essential for success in the program (MS-2).
Taken together with the requirement for a four-year degree, pending changes to the Admissions
requirements will also contribute to compliance with standard IS-14, which requires that students be
encouraged and supported to participate in research. By entering the program with more rigorous premedical exposure to and participation in research activities, students are more likely to engage
successfully in ongoing research opportunities throughout medical school.
Downloaded 2013-12-06 from http://www.lcme.org/publications/functions2013june.pdf:
MS-1: Through its requirements for admission, a medical education program should encourage potential
applicants to acquire a broad undergraduate education, including study of the humanities, the natural
sciences, and the social sciences.
Annotation: Ordinarily, four years of undergraduate education are necessary to prepare for
entrance into an M.D. degree program. However, some special programs (e.g., combined
baccalaureate-M.D. programs) may permit a reduction in this time period. A broad-based
undergraduate education is increasingly important for the development of physician
competencies outside of the scientific knowledge domain.
MS-2: A medical education program should restrict its premedical course requirements to those deemed
essential preparation for successful completion of its curriculum.
IS-14: An institution that offers a medical education program should make available sufficient
opportunities for medical students to participate in research and other scholarly activities of its faculty
and encourage and support medical student participation.
Annotation: The institution is expected to provide an appropriate number and variety of research
opportunities to accommodate those medical students desiring to participate. To encourage
medical student participation, the institution could, for example, provide information about
available opportunities, offer elective credit for research, hold research days, or include research
as a required part of the curriculum. Support for medical student participation could include
offering or providing information about financial support for student research (e.g., stipends).
80
College of Arts and Science
9 Campus Drive
Saskatoon SK, S7N 5A5
Telephone: (306) 966-4232
Facsimile: (306) 966-8839
Dr. Barry Ziola
Director of Admissions
Professor of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine
College of Medicine
January 3, 2014
Dear Barry,
The College of Arts & Science is pleased to support the change in requirement for SK residents, the
completion of a successful Medical College Admission Test (MCAT), for future (2015) admission into the
Medicine programme at the University of Saskatchewan.
It is our understanding that previously required prerequisite courses will become recommended courses for
Medical School applicants from the UofS. We do not see this change(s) impacting the College of Arts &
Science in any significant way.
The College of Arts & Science supports the requirement of the MCAT for admission into the Medicine
programme at the University of Saskatchewan.
Sincerely,
______________________
Peta Bonham-Smith
Vice Dean Science
College of Arts & Science
Cc
Peter Stoicheff, Dean College of Arts & Science
David Parkinson, Vice Dean Humanities & Fine Arts
Linda McMullen, Vice Dean Social Sciences
College of Arts & Science
81
Applicant Criteria
Medical School
Memorial University
Dalhousie University
Universite Laval
Universite de Sherbrooke
No
None (except for 5 seats for the 6 cu of English
rest of Canada and International
- they must get at least a 10 on
each section)
MCAT Minimum Score
Yes
24 Maritime (only one 7
permitted) 30 Non Martime
(only one 9 permitted)
MCAT Required
Yes
N/A
2 courses in biology; 3 courses in
chemistry; 2 courses in
mathematics; 3 courses in
physics
Prerequisite Course
Requirements
No
N/A
No
Mathematics 103 and 203;
physics 101, 201 and 301;
chemistry 101, 201 and 202;
biology 301 and 401 or biology
911 and 921. Courses deemed
equivalent by the faculty will
be accepted.
82
Applicant Criteria
Medical School
MCAT Required
N/A
MCAT Minimum Score
Prerequisite Course
Requirements
Biology 301 and 401 or two
courses of human biology;
chemistry 101, 201 and 202;
mathematics 103 and 203;
physics 101, 201 and 301.
N/A
Biology, chemistry, mathematics,
physics and one organic
chemistry course
No
No
N/A
Yes
MCAT score changes from year None
to year based on the applicant
pool
No
Yes
One full credit of Biology with
lab, One full credit of
Humanities or Social Sciences
and the equivalent of two full
credits within the General
Chemistry with lab, Organic
Chemistry with lab and/or
Biochemistry without lab.
Universite de Montreal
McGill University
University of Ottawa
Queen's University
University of Toronto
A minimum score of 9 or better Two full courses in life sciences
in all catagories
and one full course in social
science/humanities/second
language
83
Applicant Criteria
Medical School
MCAT Required
MCAT Minimum Score
None
Prerequisite Course
Requirements
None
MCAT cut offs vary from year
to year and are dependent on
the competitiveness of the
applicant pool
N/A
VR 6 (don't use other scores)
Yes
N/A
Yes
N/A
McMaster University
Western
University/Schulich
School of Medicine
Northern Ontario School
of Medicine
84
Applicant Criteria
Medical School
University of Manitoba
MCAT Required
IP - No, if all prerequisites taken IP 26; OP 30
at U of S or U of R; IP - YES, if
prerequisites were not taken at
the U of S or U of R; OP -Yes
Yes. Must be within 3 years of
application; no maximum #
attempts.
University of
Saskatchewan
Yes
Yes - 2 terms each of biology,
biochemistry, chemistry, english,
physics, social
sciences/humanities
MCAT Minimum Score
Prerequisite Course
Requirements
Minimum score of 7 or better in Minimum of 6 credit hours
any category
completed in Biochemistry. 6-18
credit hours in humanities/social
sciences (depending on 3 or 4
year degree). Applicants with a
BSc (General) or BA (General)
must complete 18 credit hours in
humanities/social sciences.
Applicants who complete a 4
Year Major or Honours program
may waive up to 12 credit hours
of the humanities / social
sciences prerequisite.
University of Alberta
Minimum score of 7 or better in 6 cu each of biology, general
any category
chemistry, organic chemistry,
physics, english. 3 cu each of
statistics, biochemistry.
85
Applicant Criteria
Medical School
Yes
MCAT Required
Yes
University of Calgary
University of British
Columbia
MCAT Minimum Score
Prerequisite Course
Requirements
OP's must have an 11 in VR.
None
No cutoff for IP although only
those with a gpa of 3.40 and a
VR of 8 are guaranteed a full file
review
Minimum score of 7 or better in English, biochemistry, biology,
any category
organic and inorganic chemistry
86
Entering Class of September 2010
Entering Class of September 2010
1234
256
167
145
244
155
25
12
12
n/a
3
5
n/a
32 (NMP) MD/PhD = 1
10
M 38/F 46
M 84/F 86
M 122 /F 134 47.3/52.4% 25 PhD, 5 191 (BSc 35
Masters = 155)
49.4/50.6% 3 PhD, 27 147
23
Masters
M 96/F 71
Total
Total
applicants positions
1793
170
n/a
Medical School
University of Alberta
1931
9
In
Out of
Aboriginal Rural
Other Positions, please Male/Female % M/F
Students Students 2/3 year
Province Province Positions Positions specify
Students
with
with
Positions Positions
PhD/Ma Degrees
sters
57.4/42.6% 0
107
27
University of British
Columbia
University of Calgary
2
39
74
38
84
10
45.2/54.8% 1 PhD
University of Saskatchewan 848
100
59.1/40.9
110
M 65/F 45
847
admitted 7 49% of
but no
class w/
quota
rural
attributes
6
9
108
M 76/F 128 37.3/62.7% 11 (at
85
time of
applicatio
n)
M 108/F 142 43.2/56.8% 96
145
15
4
n/a
University of Manitoba
5
n/a
85
129
0
n/a
2
n/a
47%/53% 22
35.2/64.8% 32
34.4/65.6% 1 PhD, 14 64
Masters
n/a
10
n/a
n/a
n/a
58 from Northern Ontario M 22 /F 42
64
203 + 1
194
(international)
n/a
up to 4
7
0
Northern Ontario School of 1748
Medicine
n/a
n/a
n/a
3 PhD, 22 171
Masters
1
250
n/a
n/a
55/45%
n/a
3108
100
165
n/a
n/a
University of Toronto
332
3637
47.1/52.9% 18 (10.3% 102
of 174)
n/a
M 47/ F 53
We have 8 seats reserved M 58/F 107
for the
CNFS (Consortium
4 International positions. M 82/F 92
0; Students
w/1yr
university
- 72
(41.4%)
MD/Engineering 1,
M 94/F 77
MD/Phd 5,
Oralmaxillofacial Surgery
171
Queen's University
University of Ottawa
1 avail. / 0 n/a
filled
University of Western
2372
Ontario/Schulich School of
Medicine
McMaster University
3785
McGill University Underline 1688 (1044 (81 Med-P + 88+1+72 9
=
of
1
=
st
which are
Numbers for admissions
1 Nat/Inu + 161
qualifying year, counted only for directly 1 Special) +
into med
next year (should they
(4 Intl
school)
qualify). Italics = Numbers
+ 9 OOP +
for admissions directly into
88 IP) =
medical school, counted this
184
year. Bold = Numbers for
admissions from last year (e.g.
87
109
64
298
99
49
9
15
4
Total
Total
In Province Out of
Province
applicants positions Positions
Positions
2431
879
645
293 (275
nouveaux
+18
attritions)
Entering Class of September 2010
Medical School
Universite de Montreal
Universite de Sherbrooke
Universite Laval
Dalhousie University
Memorial University
n/a
Entering Class of September 2010
M 61/F 48
M 29/F 35
56/ 44% 24
45.3/54.7% 5
85
64
0
Aboriginal Rural
Other Positions, please Male/Female % M/F
Students Students 2/3 year
Students
Positions Positions specify
with
with
PhD/Ma Degrees
sters
1
s/o
M 89/F 209 29.9%/70.1 2 PhD
116
180 (171
%
(pas de (baccalau collégiens+8
statistique réats et en cours de
s sur les maîtrises) bacc.+ 1
détenteurs
étranger)
de
maîtrise)
n/a
n/a
OMFS = 1
New Brnsuwck, Prince
Edward
Island, Yukon, Non-
88
AGENDA ITEM NO: 9.5
UNIVERSITY OF SASKATCHEWAN
UNIVERSITY SENATE
ITEM FOR CONFIRMATION
PRESENTED BY:
Jay Kalra, Chair, University Council
DATE OF MEETING:
April 26, 2014
SUBJECT:
College of Graduate Studies and Research: Master of Nursing
(Nurse Practitioner option) and Postgraduate Degree
Specialization Certificate: Nurse Practitioner – change to
admission qualifications
DECISION REQUESTED:
It is recommended:
That Senate confirm the changes in admission qualifications for
the Master of Nursing (Nurse Practitioner Option) and the
Postgraduate Degree Specialization Certificate: Nurse
Practitioner from the College of Graduate Studies and Research,
effective September 2014.
PURPOSE:
The University of Saskatchewan Act states that decisions regarding admission qualifications and
enrolment quotas for university programs are to be approved by Council and confirmed by
University Senate.
SUMMARY:
At its meeting on February 27, 2014, University Council approved changes to the admission
requirements for the Master of Nursing (Nurse Practitioner Option) and the Postgraduate Degree
Specialization Certificate: Nurse Practitioner from the College of Graduate Studies and Research.
The proposed changes to the admission requirements for the Maser of Nursing (Nurse
Practitioner Option) and the Postgraduate Degree Specialization Certificate: Nurse Practitioner are
based in guiding principles set forth by a National Taskforce on Nurse Practitioner Education
established in 2011 by the Canadian Association of the Schools of Nursing.
Changes to the Master of Nursing (Nurse Practitioner Option) will require candidates to have the
equivalent of three credit units in each of physical assessment, pharmacology, and physiology at
an undergraduate level in order to be considered for admission. These changes are in addition to
the existing requirement of three credit units in each of statistics and research methods at an
undergraduate level. Changes to the Postgraduate Degree Specialization Certificate: Nurse
Practitioner will require candidates to have the equivalent of 3 credit units each in a graduate
research and in a graduate statistics course.
The Postgraduate Degree Specialization Certificate: Nurse Practitioner exists to provide nurse
practitioner training to those who have prior graduate level education and are working in the field
89
of nursing, but because of their prior graduate level education, do not want or need to complete a
Master of Nursing (Nurse Practitioner) degree. Further proposed admission requirement changes
for the Postgraduate Degree Specialization Certificate: Nurse Practitioner brings the admission
requirements for the certificate, including the required hours of registered nursing experience, in
line with the requirements of the Master of Nursing (Nurse Practitioner option). Also, current
admission requirements for the Postgraduate Degree Specialization Certificate: Nurse Practitioner
only allows admission of students who have completed Masters of Nursing degrees. The proposed
admission requirements open admission to those who have a Masters or Doctorate from either
Nursing or a related discipline.
ATTACHMENTS:
Academic programs committee report to University Council of February, 2014 and proposal
documentation from the College of Medicine.
90
ATTACHMENT: Academic programs committee report to University Council
of February, 2014 and proposal from the College of Medicine.
AGENDA ITEM NO: 10.1
UNIVERSITY COUNCIL
ACADEMIC PROGRAMS COMMITTEE
REQUEST FOR DECISION
PRESENTED BY:
Roy Dobson, Chair, Academic Programs Committee of Council
DATE OF MEETING:
January 29, 2014
SUBJECT:
College of Graduate Studies and Research: Master of Nursing
(Nurse Practitioner option) and Postgraduate Degree
Specialization Certificate: Nurse Practitioner – change to
admission qualifications
DECISION REQUESTED:
It is recommended:
That Council approve the changes in admission qualifications for the
Master of Nursing (Nurse Practitioner Option) and the Postgraduate
Degree Specialization Certificate: Nurse Practitioner from the
College of Graduate Studies and Research, effective September
2014.
PURPOSE:
Under the University of Saskatchewan Act 1995, decisions regarding admission qualifications
and enrolment quotas for university programs are to be approved by Council and confirmed by
Senate. Admission qualifications are defined in the Admissions Policy as follows:
These are the credentials that an applicant must present in order to establish eligibility
for admission. They include but are not restricted to objective qualifications such as high
school subjects, secondary or post-secondary standing, minimum averages, English
proficiency, and minimum scores on standardized tests. Qualifications may vary for some
admission categories.
The motions if approved by Council will be presented to the Spring, 2014 meeting of University
Senate for confirmation.
SUMMARY:
The proposed changes to the admission requirements for the Maser of Nursing (Nurse
Practitioner Option) and the Postgraduate Degree Specialization Certificate: Nurse Practitioner
are based in guiding principles set forth by a National Taskforce on Nurse Practitioner Education
established in 2011 by the Canadian Association of the Schools of Nursing. Changes to the
Master of Nursing (Nurse Practitioner Option) will require candidates to have the equivalent of
three credit units in each of physical assessment, pharmacology, and physiology at an
undergraduate level in order to be considered for admission. These changes are in addition to the
existing requirement of three credit units in each of statistics and research methods at an
undergraduate level. Changes to the Postgraduate Degree Specialization Certificate: Nurse
Practitioner will require candidates to have the equivalent of 3 credit units each in a graduate
research and in a graduate statistics course.
91
Two further changes are being proposed to the Postgraduate Degree Specialization Certificate:
Nurse Practitioner. The Postgraduate Degree Specialization Certificate: Nurse Practitioner exists
to provide nurse practitioner training to those who have prior graduate level education and are
working in the field of nursing, but because of their prior graduate level education, do not want
or need to complete a Master of Nursing (Nurse Practitioner) degree. The proposed admission
requirements for the Postgraduate Degree Specialization Certificate: Nurse Practitioner brings
the admission requirements for the certificate, including the required hours of registered nursing
experience, in line with the requirements of the Master of Nursing (Nurse Practitioner option).
Also, current admission requirements for the Postgraduate Degree Specialization Certificate:
Nurse Practitioner only allows admission of students who have completed Masters of Nursing
degrees. The proposed admission requirements open admission to those who have a Masters or
Doctorate from either Nursing or a related discipline.
REVIEW:
The Academic Programs Committee discussed this proposal with CGSR Associate Dean Trever
Crowe and Professor Mary-Ellen Andrews. It was noted that the changes allowed nursing
graduates to receive a degree in a field other than nursing and to then return for the nurse
practitioner certificate. It was also noted that the changes had been approved by the accrediting
body.
ATTACHMENTS:
Proposal documents; Letters of support.
92
Proposal for Curriculum Change
University of Saskatchewan
to be approved by University Council or by Academic Programs Committee
1. PROPOSAL IDENTIFICATION
Title of proposal:
Degree(s):
MN (NP Option) and Postgraduate Degree Specialization Certificate: Nurse
Practitioner
Field(s) of Specialization:
Nurse Practitioner
Level(s) of Concentration:
Option(s):
Degree College:
Graduate Studies and Research
Home College: College of Nursing
Department: N/A
Contact person(s) (name, telephone, fax, e-mail): Dean & Graduate Program Chair, Dr. Lorna
Butler, 6221, lorna.butler@usask.ca
Date: December 4, 2012
Approved by the degree college and/or home college: Approved at College of Nursing,
Proposed date of implementation: Retroactive to 2012 Admission
2. Type of change
Requiring approval by Council
 A new Degree-Level program or template for program.
 A new Field of Specialization at the Major or Honours Level of Concentration or template
for a major or honours program
 Conversion of an existing program from regular to special tuition program.
XA change in the requirements for admission to a program
 A change in quota for a college
 Program revisions that will use new resources
 A replacement program, including program deletion
 A program deletion (consult Program Termination Procedures, approved by Council in
May 2001)
Requiring approval by Academic Programs Committee
 Addition of a higher Level of Concentration to an existing Field of Specialization.
 Addition of a new Field of Specialization at the Minor Level of Concentration.
 A change in program options
 A change in the name of a Degree-level Program or Field of Specialization.
 A change in the total number of credit units required for an approved degree program.
93
Proposal
3. Rationale
The Nurse Practitioner Option of the Master of Nursing program has been in place since 2006.
The admission requirements listed in the table below were revised and approved in 2010.
The Postgraduate Degree Specialization Certificate: Nurse Practitioner (PGDSC) has been in place
since 2009. The admission requirements have not been revised since the initiation of this program.
The table below outlines the previous requirements and the proposed requirements. Each will be
addressed after the respective program table.
Change From
Change To
Nurse Practitioner Option of the Master of
Nursing
Nurse Practitioner Option of the Master of
Nursing
- Bachelor’s degree in nursing*
- Current licensure as registered nurse in a
Canadian province or territory
- the equivalent of three credit units in each of
statistics and research methods at the
undergraduate level
- a minimum 70% average in the last 60 university
credit units taken
- 2 years FTE (3600 hours) experience as a
registered nurse in the last five years
- Current CPR certificate at health care provider
level
- Bachelor’s degree in nursing*
- Current licensure as registered nurse in a
Canadian province or territory
- the equivalent of three credit units in each of
physical assessment, pharmacology, physiology,
statistics and research methods at the
undergraduate level
- a minimum 70% average in the last 60 university
credit units taken
- 2 years FTE (3600 hours) experience as a
registered nurse in the last five years
- Current CPR certificate at health care provider
level
*Students with a diploma and a baccalaureate in another
field could be considered on a case by case basis in light *Students with a diploma and a baccalaureate in another
of other attributes they bring to the program.
field could be considered on a case by case basis in light
of other attributes they bring to the program.
Postgraduate
Degree
Specialization
Certificate: Nurse Practitioner (PGDSC)
- completion of Masters in Nursing (MN, MScN, MSN)
from a recognized university with a 70% average within
that degree
- a current RN license in good standing from any
Canadian jurisdiction,
- 4500 hours clinical practice as an RN (approximately 2
years full time practice).
Postgraduate
Degree
Specialization
Certificate: Nurse Practitioner (PGDSC)
-Meet the requirements for admission to MNNP Option.
- completion of a Masters or PhD in Nursing or
in a related discipline (education, health
administration, public health) from a
recognized university with a 70% average
within that degree.
- 3 credit units in each a graduate research
methods and a graduate statistics course.
94
Summary of changes and rationale:
A. In 2011, the Canadian Association of the Schools of Nursing struck a National Taskforce on
Nurse Practitioner Education. The purpose of this taskforce was to develop a national
consensus framework of guiding principles and essential components for NP education
programs across Canada. In November of 2012, the taskforce presented a document outlining
these guiding principles and essential components to the CASN Annual Nursing Graduate
Program Forum. One of the guiding principles stated that NP programs should have clear
prerequisites for admission. The change in the admission requirements for the College of
Nursing MN Program NP Option and the PGDSC reflect CASN suggested criteria for
admission to graduate level NP education.
B. Present admission requirement exclude registered nurses who furthered their education in a
field of study other than nursing. At present, three students are in the MN-NP Option
Program who have completed a Master’s Degree in Public Health or Epidemiology. As
students in the PGDSC have previously completed graduate level courses in research and
statistics, and completed a thesis or publishable paper, these courses are not repeated in the
PGDSC. Students in the PGDSC take all of the other required courses in the NP program.
Therefore, the exclusion of nurses with a Master’s degree from a field other than nursing
disadvantaged Master’s prepared nurses with additional advanced education.
4. Description of Program Characteristics
The remainder of the program will remain as approved in 2008.
5. Resources
There will be no additional resources required.
6. Relationships and Impact of Changes
There are no changes that will result in the delivery of the program. The faculty is pleased that
we will be following the CASN guiding principles and essential components for NP education.
There are two students in the program that could benefit from the change in the admission policy
who have a graduate degree from another college. The third student has already completed the
required courses. It is hoped that the Academic Programs Committee will advise on the ability of
these student to make a program change from the MN-NP Option to the PGDSC if the students
request this change.
7. Budget
There is no change in the budget from current practice.
95
College of Graduate Studies and Research
MEMORANDUM
To:
Cathie Fornssler, Committee Coordinator
Academic Programs Committee of University Council
From: Trever Crowe, Associate Dean
College of Graduate Studies and Research
Copies: Phil Woods, Associate Dean – Research, College of Nursing
Date:
January 23, 2014
Re:
Proposal for a Change to the Requirements for Admission to the Master of
Nursing (Nurse Practitioner Option) and the Postgraduate Degree
Specialization Certificate: Nurse Practitioner
Consistent with the Curricular Changes – Authority for Approval chart approved by University Council
April 2002, attached is a report that describes the review of the proposed change to the requirements for
admission to the Master of Nursing (Nurse Practitioner Option) and the Postgraduate Degree
Specialization Certificate: Nurse Practitioner.
This report includes three appendices: CGSR committees’ recommendations for approval, correspondence
associated with the review process, and the CGSR approved proposal. The formal review started with the
Graduate Programs Committee on February 5, 2013, and the final motion to recommend to the Academic
Programs Committee was made by the College Executive Committee on April 18, 2013.
The College of Graduate Studies and Research supports the proposed change to the requirements for
admission to the Master of Nursing (Nurse Practitioner Option) and the Postgraduate Degree
Specialization Certificate: Nurse Practitioner. If questions or concerns arise during the review by the
Academic Programs Committee, I would be happy to respond.
TC/ab
96
Proposal for a Change to the Requirements for Admission to the Master of Nursing (Nurse
Practitioner Option) and the Postgraduate Degree Specialization
Certificate: Nurse Practitioner
Discussion and Motion passed at College of Graduate Studies and Research Executive
Committee – April 18, 2013
Change to the Requirements for Admission to the Master of Nursing (Nurse Practitioner
Option) and the Postgraduate Degree Specialization Certificate: Nurse Practitioner – The
proposal would add the admission requirement of 3 credit units in each of physical assessment,
pharmacology and physiology. In the certificate program, students can come in with a different
graduate degree and require 3 credit units in each of a graduate research and graduate
statistics course, and are also being required in addition to meet the requirements for entry into
the Master of Nursing (Nurse Practitioner Option). Since the Postgraduate Degree Specialization
Certificate: Nurse Practitioner serves to provide Nurse Practitioner training to individuals who
already have a Masters in Nursing, it is appropriate to bring the admission requirements of the
Postgraduate Degree Specialization Certificate: Nurse Practitioner in line with the Master of
Nursing (Nurse Practitioner Option).
MOTION: “To recommend the proposal for a change in the requirements for admission
to the Master of Nursing (Nurse Practitioner Option) and the Postgraduate Degree
Specialization Certificate: Nurse Practitioner for approval.”
Nichol/ Ohiozebau. Carried.
Discussion and Motion passed at College of Graduate Studies and Research Graduate
Programs Committee – February 5, 2013
Change to the Requirements for Admission to the Master of Nursing (Nurse Practitioner
Option) and the Postgraduate Degree Specialization Certificate: Nurse Practitioner – This
proposal increased the number and diversity of courses required for admittance into the MN
(NP) option. This is proposed to ensure that students applying from different undergraduate
programs at different universities, including international universities, are capable to meet the
academic demands of the MN (NP) program and the PGNPC program.
MOTION: “That the proposal for the change to admission requirement for the Master of
Nursing (Nurse Practitioner Option) and Postgraduate Degree Specialization Certificate:
Nurse Practitioner be recommended to the Executive Committee of CGSR for approval.”
Goodridge/ Whiting. Carried.
97
College of Graduate Studies and Research
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Graduate Executive Committee
FROM:
Dr. Laureen McIntyre, Chair
Graduate Programs Committee, College of Graduate Studies and Research
DATE:
March 7, 2013
RE:
Change in the Requirements for Admission to the Master of Nursing (Nurse
Practitioner Option) and the Postgraduate Degree Specialization Certificate:
Nurse Practitioner
At its February 5, 2013 meeting, the Graduate Programs Committee of the College of Graduate
Studies and Research considered the proposal for Change in the Requirements for Admission to
the Master of Nursing (Nurse Practitioner Option) and the Postgraduate Degree Specialization
Certificate: Nurse Practitioner. The committee passed the following motion:
“That the proposal for the change to admission requirements for the Master of
Nursing (Nurse Practitioner Option) and Postgraduate Degree Specialization
Certificate: Nurse Practitioner be recommended to the Executive Committee of
CGSR for approval”. D. Goodridge/ S. Whiting. All in favour. Carried.
Please find attached correspondence associated with the review process and the final version of
the proposal.
Sincerely,
Laureen McIntyre, Ph.D.
Chair, Graduate Programs Committee, College of Graduate Studies and Research
ab for LM
98
Memorandum
To:
Lorna Butler, Dean and Graduate Chair
From:
Laureen McIntyre, Graduate Programs Committee
College of Graduate Studies and Research
Date:
February 13th, 2013
Re:
Change to Admission Requirements - Master of Nursing and Postgraduate Degree Specialization
Certificate: Nurse Practitioner
This is to inform you that the proposal for Change to Admission Requirements for the Master of Nursing (Nurse
Practitioner Option) and the Postgraduate Degree Specialization Certificate: Nurse Practitioner has been reviewed by
the Graduate Programs Committee. I am pleased to inform you the committee approved the proposal for
recommendation to Graduate Executive Committee for consideration, with ultimate approval resting with University
Council.
The committee recommends that the proposed requirement for the Postgraduate Degree Specialization Certificate:
Nurse Practitioner stated as “completion of Masters in Nursing (MN, MScN, MSN or PhD)” should probably be stated
either as “completion of a Masters or PhD in Nursing” or “completion of a graduate degree in Nursing (MN, MScN, MSN
or PhD)”, as a PhD is not a kind of Masters and thus the requirement as stated could be misleading.
Please contact Alex Beldan (#2229) in the College of Graduate Studies and Research if you have any questions.
LM/ab
99
AGENDA ITEM NO: 10.1.1
UNIVERSITY OF SASKATCHEWAN
UNIVERSITY SENATE
REQUEST FOR DECISION
PRESENTED BY:
Ilene Busch-Vishniac, President
Senate Executive Committee Member
DATE OF MEETING:
April 26, 2014
SUBJECT:
Proposed amendments to electoral district boundaries 10 and 11
DECISION REQUESTED:
That Senate approve the proposed amendments to Senate
electoral district boundaries 10 and 11.
POLICY:
The University of Saskatchewan Act, 1995 permits the Senate to make bylaws respecting
amending the boundaries of electoral districts [s25(b)(ii)]. The Senate’s bylaws provide that the
boundaries of the electoral districts may from time to time be amended by Senate [Bylaw
III.3(a)].
BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY:
Currently electoral district 11 includes Prince Albert, the surrounding area, and a large area north
of Prince Albert to the Saskatchewan border. There are approximately 3,350 alumni who live in
this area. It has been recommended that Prince Albert and surrounding area be separated from
the rural portion of this district, as they have different concerns between the urban and rural
areas.
Executive committee is proposing that a new district 11 include Prince Albert (defined as
addresses with postal codes beginning with S6W, S6V, and S6X), Albertville, Beatty, Birch
Hills, Choiceland, Christopher Lake, Foxford, Garrick, Hagen, Henribourg, Hoey, Kinistino,
Love, Meath Park, Muskoday, Paddockwood, Shipman, Smeaton, Snowden, Spruce Home, St.
Louis, Weirdon, Weldon and White Fox. This new senate district (New District 11) in its current
state would have 2,920 alumni residing in it.
100
Executive committee is also proposing that district 10 and the remainder of old district 11 be
combined to form a new district 10 (New District 10). In its current state New District 10 would
have approximately 540 alumni residing in it.
Attached is a map of the electoral districts with the proposed boundary of New District 10
indicated in red, and the proposed boundary for New District 11 indicated in purple.
For comparison purposes the numbers of alumni residing in the electoral districts are as
follows:
District 1 – Weyburn – Estevan - Carlyle – 1,217
District 2 – Chaplin - Moose Jaw - Rockglen – 1,995
District 3 – Leader – Climax – Swift Current – 1,688
District 4 – Kenaston – Indian Head – Moosomin – 2,210
District 5 – Kindersley – Delisle – Lucky Lake – 1,903
District 6 – Wynyard – Esterhazy – 2,135
District 7 – Unity – Duck Lake – Watrous - 4,543
District 8 – LaLoche – Green Lake – Battleford – 1,414
District 9 - Nipawin – Melfort – Hudson Bay – 1,717
District 10 (new) – Sandy Bay – Creighton – Stony Rapids - 538
District 11 (new) – Prince Albert – 2,921
District 12 – Blaine Lake – Uranium City - 788
District 13 – Saskatoon - 33,149
District 14 – Regina - 7,332
The incumbent Senator from district 10, Janice Jonsson, continues to reside in New District 10,
and the incumbent Senator from district 11, Jerri Hoback, continues to reside in New District 11.
If approved by Senate, the new boundaries will take effect as of the next elections that occur in
electoral districts 10 and 11. So if both incumbents remain for their full terms, the next election
in New District 10 will be in 2015 and in New District 11 will be in 2016.
This was brought to Senate as a notice of motion in October, to allow for a period of
consideration and feedback. The committee has not received any comments or concerns.
ATTACHMENT:
1. Map of Senate’s 14 electoral districts with proposed New District 10 outlined in red and
proposed new District 11 outlined in purple.
101
102
AGENDA ITEM NO: 10.1.2
UNIVERSITY SENATE
SENATE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
ITEM FOR APPROVAL
PRESENTED BY:
Ilene Busch-Vishniac, President
Senate Executive Committee Member
DATE OF MEETING:
April 26, 2014
SUBJECT:
Appointments to the Senate Nominations Committee for 2014/15
DECISION REQUESTED:
That Mairin Loewen, Lori Isinger, Vera Pezer and Colleen Toye be
appointed to the nominations committee for 2014/15.
BACKGROUND:
The executive committee is responsible for the nomination of members to the Senate nominations
committee. Membership of the nominations committee is composed of the chair of the executive
committee (Chancellor) or a designate from the executive committee, four members of Senate,
and the secretary as a non-voting member. The term of a Senate member on the committee is one
year, renewable annually for up to two additional years, for a maximum of three years. The term
of the chair is the same.
SUMMARY:
The executive committee reviewed the membership and sought representation from members
both in and outside of Saskatoon. The executive committee appointed Mairin Loewen as the chair
of the nominations committee contingent on her reappointment to the committee.
PROPOSED MEMBERSHIP FOR 2014/15:
Chancellor as chair of the executive committee
Four members of Senate:
Mairin Loewen, chair
Lori Isinger
Vera Pezer
Colleen Toye
University Secretary (non-voting member)
103
AGENDA ITEM NO: 10.1.3
UNIVERSITY SENATE
SENATE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
FOR INFORMATION
PRESENTED BY:
Ilene Busch-Vishniac
Senate Executive
DATE OF MEETING:
April 26, 2014
SUBJECT:
Special Committee to Review the Standard of Student
Conduct in Non-Academic Matters and Regulations and
Procedures of Complaints and Appeals
The Senate Executive Committee approved the establishment
of a special committee to consider amendments to the
Standard of Student Conduct in Non-academic Matters and
Regulations and Procedures for Resolution of Complaints
and Appeals, primarily regarding presidential suspensions,
naming the chair of hearing boards, alignment with the
university’s regulations regarding student academic
discipline and appeals, and any consequential amendments.
Membership of the committee will be as follows:
• Vice-Provost, Teaching and Learning (chair)
• One student member who has served on hearing boards
under the standard
• One Council member who has served on hearing boards
under the standard
• Two members of Senate who have served on hearing
boards under the standard.
BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY:
The University of Saskatchewan Act, 1995 gives Senate the authority and responsibility
for “making bylaws respecting the discipline of students for any reason other than
academic dishonesty.”
In October 2008, Senate approved major revisions to the Standard for Student Conduct in
Non-Academic Matters and Regulations and Procedures for Resolution of Complaints
and Appeals, which were revised in April 2010 and October 2012.
Under Senate’s Bylaws, the Executive Committee has the duty and power, “To appoint
task forces or special committees composed of members of Senate with power to
investigate and report on matters of interest and concern to Senate.” Over the past few
months it has been identified that the provisions in the Standard and the Regulations and
Procedures that address hearings and appeals of presidential suspensions would benefit
104
from a review. Secondly, the Regulations on Student Academic Misconduct are currently
under review and some of the resulting proposed amendments may be applicable to the
Regulations on Non-academic Misconduct. Thirdly, when there are formal hearings, the
Regulations and Procedures state that the Associate Vice President, Student Affairs, or
designate, is to be the non-voting chair of the hearing board. As the position of AVP,
Student Affairs, has been discontinued at the university, this needs to be addressed. For
these reasons the Executive Committee approved the establishment of a special
committee that includes the individuals set out above to review the Standard and the
Regulations and Procedures. The make-up of this committee is similar to the task force
that conducted the three-year review resulting in amendments in 2012 – except the ViceProvost, Teaching and Learning will be the chair instead of the AVP, Student Affairs.
105
AGENDA ITEM NO: 10.2.1
UNIVERSITY SENATE
SENATE NOMINATIONS COMMITTEE
ITEM FOR APPROVAL
PRESENTED BY:
Ann March
Chair, Nominations Committee
DATE OF MEETING:
April 26, 2014
SUBJECT:
Nominations for Standing Committees and Positions 2014/15
DECISION REQUESTED:
That Senate approve the nominations to Senate committees and
positions as indicated in the attached schedule for 2014/15,
effective July 1, 2014.
BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY:
The Senate Nominations Committee is responsible to recommend to Senate individuals for
membership to standing and other committees of Senate.
The Senate Nominations Committee met on March 6, 2014 to recommend the appointment of
members to Senate committees.
The Senate Nominations Committee is also tasked by its terms of reference to make appointments
to other committees that require Senate representation. At the March meeting the Senate
Nominations Committee chose the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Saskatchewan as the
representative Senate organization from which an individual was put forward for the Review
Committee for the Dean of the Edwards School of Business.
ATTACHMENT:
1. Senate Nominations Committee report, April 2014.
106
Attachment 1: Senate Nominations Committee report, April 2014
SENATE NOMINATIONS COMMITTEE REPORT
April 2014
Senate committee membership - July 1, 2014 to June 30, 2015
New members are indicated in bold type.
Executive Committee
Chancellor (Chair): Blaine Favel
President or designate: Ilene Busch-Vishniac
Two ex officio members: Daphne Taras, Peggy McKercher
Three appointed members: Simon Bird, Lee Braaten, Karen Prisciak
Three elected members: Jim Nichol, Bob Krismer, Mark Stumborg
One student member: TBA
Secretary: Elizabeth Williamson
Honorary Degrees Committee
President (Chair): Ilene Busch-Vishniac
Chancellor (Vice Chair): Blaine Favel
Provost and Vice President (Academic): Brett Fairbairn
Two ex officio members: Lorne Calvert, Peter Stoicheff
Two appointed members: Helen Christensen, Mairin Loewen
Two elected members: Tenielle McLeod, Richard Michalenko
One student member: TBA
Secretary (non-voting): Elizabeth Williamson
Membership Committee
Chair of committee: Bob Krismer
Chair of executive committee or designate: Blaine Favel
Four elected members of Senate: Lenore Swystun, Bob Krismer, Ron Schriml, Jerri Hoback
Education Committee
Two ex-officio members: Blaine Favel, Sanjeev Anand
Two appointed members: Doug Frondall, David Dutchak
Two elected members: Lenore Swystun, Russ McPherson
One student elected by student members of Senate: TBA
Round Table on Outreach and Engagement
Four district Senators: Adelle Kopp-McKay, Corinna Stevenson, Janice Jonsson, Theresa Girardin
University Council
Sarah Binnie and Jim Pulfer
Senate Hearing Board for Non-academic Student Discipline and Appeals (3-year terms)
Six members of Senate: Armand Lavoie, Ernest Olfter, Nadia Prokopchuk, Jerri Hoback, Lenore
Swystun, Valerie Mushinski
107
AGENDA ITEM NO: 10.2.2
UNIVERSITY SENATE
SENATE NOMINATIONS COMMITTEE
ITEM FOR APPROVAL
PRESENTED BY:
Ann March
Chair, Nominations Committee
DATE OF MEETING:
April 26, 2014
SUBJECT:
Naming Interim Chair to Senate Hearing Board for Non-Academic
Student Discipline and Appeals
DECISION REQUESTED:
That Senate confirm the naming of the Vice-provost, Teaching and
Learning, or designate, as interim chair of the Senate Hearing
Boards for non-academic student misconduct hearings from April
26, 2014 to and until the Standard of Student Conduct in NonAcademic Matters and Regulations and Procedures for Resolution
of Complaints and Appeals are revised.
BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY:
The Senate Nominations Committee is responsible “to recommend to Senate individuals for
membership on, and chairs of other standing committees of Senate, and Senate representatives on
other committees” and, “to make appointments to standing committees of Senate and for Senate
representation on other committees when vacancies arise between meetings of the Senate, and to
report these to Senate at its next meeting”.
The Standard of Student Conduct in Non-Academic Matters and Regulations and Procedures for
Resolution of Complaints and Appeals state that the Associate Vice-president, Student Affairs or
designate, is to chair the Senate Hearing Boards for non-academic student misconduct hearings.
The position of Associate Vice-president, Student Affairs has been removed so another position
must be named to fill this role until the Regulations are amended. As there is at least one hearing
board that is required to meet before the next Senate meeting, on the recommendation of the
Senate Executive Committee the Nominations Committee named the Vice-provost, Teaching and
Learning, or designate, to chair the Senate Hearing Boards effective immediately. The Nominations
Committee recommends Senate confirm that this appointment continue from April 26, 2014 to and
until the Regulations are amended.
The Vice-provost, Teaching and Learning, has assumed leadership for the units within the Student
and Enrolment Services Division (SESD), which were formerly the responsibility of the Associate
Vice-president, Student Affairs. The Nominations Committee believes it is also appropriate to
recommend the Vice-provost, Teaching and Learning, or her designate, for this role. Dr. Patti
McDougall is currently the Vice-Provost, Teaching and Learning.
108
AGENDA ITEM NO: 10.2.3
UNIVERSITY SENATE
SENATE NOMINATIONS COMMITTEE
ITEM FOR APPROVAL
PRESENTED BY:
Ann March
Chair, Nominations Committee
DATE OF MEETING:
April 26, 2014
SUBJECT:
Re-election of Susan Milburn as Senate representative on the Board of
Governors
DECISION REQUESTED:
That Senate approve the re-election of Susan Milburn as Senate
representative to the Board of Governors for a three-year term
contingent on, and beginning as of, The University of
Saskatchewan Act, 1995 being amended to allow the Senate
representative on the Board of Governors to sit for three
consecutive terms.
BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY:
The Senate Nominations Committee is responsible to receive nominations from the Executive
Committee for Senate representatives on the Board of Governors, and to present the nominees for
election by the Senate. The Senate Nominations Committee met on April 4, 2014 to consider the
Senate Executive Committee’s recommendation to re-elect Susan Milburn to a third term as the
Senate representative on the Board of Governors, contingent on and effective as of The University of
Saskatchewan Act, 1995 being amended.
Senate can elect two individuals to the university’s Board of Governors. Currently those two are
Susan Milburn and Grit McCreath. Ms. McCreath is serving her second term on the Board until June
30, 2015. At the Senate meeting on April 21, 2012, Senate passed a motion to not name Susan
Milburn’s successor. (AGEMA/CRAWFORD: That in the interest of continuity in this time of
institutional transition, Susan Milburn, a current senate representative to the Board of Governors, not
be replaced at this time.) Changes were being sought to The University of Saskatchewan Act, 1995 to
allow the Senate representatives on the Board of Governors to have parity with the government
appointees and be able to sit for three consecutive terms, rather than just two terms. Concurrently,
the Board of Governors was looking at having seven new members (four new government
appointments, a new Chancellor, a new President, and a new USSU President), so then-President
Peter MacKinnon appealed to Senate to specifically not name Ms. Milburn’s replacement which had
the effect of allowing Ms. Milburn to remain on the Board of Governors, providing continuity and
experience.
109
Now that the Bill amending the Act has received third reading in the legislature, we believe it will be
proclaimed into effect imminently and it is prudent and appropriate for Senate to act now and not
wait for its next meeting in October.
The effect of this amendment to the Act is that the Senate appointees to the Board of Governors will
be considered more often to serve as Board chair. In the past when the government appointees
were able to serve three terms, it was always more likely that one of them would be named as
Board chair. Now that the Senate representatives can also sit for three terms, they are being
considered more readily for the position of Board chair which is evidenced by Ms. Milburn being
named as Board chair last year. Ms. Milburn currently delivers strong leadership to the Board as its
chair, and valued contributions to the Board’s deliberations. The Board also appreciates the
continuity, governance and historical knowledge that Ms. Milburn provides.
Ms. Milburn’s first term began July 1, 2006, and she was re-appointed July 1, 2009. For the reasons
set out above, her second term expired June 30, 2012 but she continues on the Board until her
replacement is named. This is consistent with how the government appointments to the Board of
Governors have been handled. When the amendments to the Act are proclaimed Ms. Milburn will be
eligible to be re-elected for a third three-year term. Although this means she will be able to serve a
total of 11 years, this is again consistent with how the government appointments have been
addressed in the past.
Upon the recommendation of the Senate Executive the Nominations Committee presents Susan
Milburn for re-election by the Senate for a three-year term on the Board of Governors, contingent
on, and effective as of, the Act being amended to allow a Senate representative to sit three
consecutive terms.
Biography of Susan Milburn
Past president of the U of S Alumni Association, Susan Milburn is well
known both on and off campus for her extensive community and corporate
involvement. She has been employed in the investment industry for many
years and is currently serving as vice-president of Raymond James Ltd. in
Saskatoon. She has also served on numerous boards throughout the
province, including three Crown corporations, and has been named one of
Saskatchewan's Women of Influence in Saskatchewan Business magazine.
Milburn was elected to the board by Senate July 2006. Her investment
background is a valuable asset in her role on the audit committee. Ms.
Milburn is also chair of the board and sits on the human resources
committee and the governance and executive committee.
110
AGENDA ITEM NO: 10.3
UNIVERSITY SENATE
SENATE MEMBERSHIP COMMITTEE
COMMITTEE REPORT
PRESENTED BY:
Joy Crawford
Member, Membership Committee
DATE OF MEETING:
April 26, 2014
SUBJECT:
Membership Committee Report
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE:
The Senate Membership Committee met on January 14th and March 20th. It is responsible for
considering applications for membership of organizations on Senate and making recommendations
thereon to Senate. It is also responsible for recommending the removal of associations from Senate.
At the request of the committee, a notice was sent to all Senators inviting them to notify those
organizations that they believed fit the criteria for membership and would be interested in joining
Senate. As a result, this year the committee received quite a few applications. The committee
considered 11 applications in all. The committee is recommending Senate grant membership to
seven organizations – five that are new and two that were formerly members of Senate. Please refer
to the Committee Recommendation for more information about the criteria for membership and
the organizations being recommended for membership.
Also, there is the requirement under to s. 24(4) of The University of Saskatchewan Act, 1995, to
review the status of professional societies or other organizations having representatives on Senate
to determine whether they should continue to send a representative to be a member of the Senate.
The Senate Membership Committee is tasked to conduct this review. The last review was begun in
2007 and reported to Senate in April 2009 (the review before that was conducted in 1999).
Therefore it is now time to conduct the five-year review.
On January 28th, 2014 questionnaires were sent to all organizations currently having
representation on Senate. Although the Senate Membership Committee had hoped to complete its
review on March 20th, there were a number of organizations that did not submit completed surveys
in time for the meeting, so the committee has decided to continue its review and report to Senate at
the October 2014 meeting.
In this process the committee was informed that the Saskatchewan Association of Speech-Language
Pathologists and Audiologists (SALSPA) has tendered its resignation as a participating member of
Senate due to its limited resources and inability to send a representative. SALSPA is hopeful that it
will be able to re-apply at some point in the future. SALSPA has been removed from the
membership.
111
AGENDA ITEM NO: 10.3
UNIVERSITY SENATE
SENATE MEMBERSHIP COMMITTEE
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
PRESENTED BY:
DATE OF MEETING:
SUBJECT:
MOTION:
Joy Crawford
Member, Membership Committee
April 26, 2014
Senate organization membership additions
That Senate approve the membership to Senate of the following
organizations effective July 1, 2014:
• Metis Nation-Saskatchewan
• Nature Saskatchewan
• Saskatchewan Arts Board
• Saskatchewan Environmental Society
• Saskatchewan Federation of Labour
• Saskatchewan Urban Municipalities Association
• Saskatchewan Writers’ Guild
BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY:
The Senate Membership Committee is responsible for recommending to Senate applications for
membership from associations on Senate.
The Senate Membership Committee met on March 20, 2014 to consider 11 applications received
from professional societies or other organizations wishing to have representatives on Senate
(recommendations regarding applicants attached as Appendix 1). Using its criteria for assessing
eligibility (attached as Appendix 2) the committee is recommending Senate approve the
membership of the seven organizations set out above. The committee is not recommending AKA
Artist-Run Centre or Persephone Theatre because they have a local focus rather than a provincewide focus; the committee is not recommending the Canadian Arts Representation le front des
artistes canadiens (CARFAC SASK) because it is a collective bargaining representative and the
committee is of the view that trade unions do not meet the criteria for membership; and the
committee is not recommending the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives Saskatchewan because
the committee felt it did not meet the requirements set out in s. 24(3) of The University of
Saskatchewan Act, 1995, which states:
(3) For the purposes of clause (1)(f), the members of the senate mentioned in clauses (1)(b)
and (c) may designate professional societies or other organizations that, in the opinion of
those members:
(a) contribute in a significant way to the social, economic and cultural welfare of
Saskatchewan; and
(b) have a demonstrated interest in furthering the goals of higher education and research at
the university.
112
Senate Membership Committee
Report on organization member applications
The following organizations are being recommended to return to Senate:
• Metis Nation-Saskatchewan (ceased to be members in 2009 due to non-attendance)
• Saskatchewan Urban Municipalities Association (ceased to be members in 2012 due
to non-attendance)
The following organizations are being recommended to Senate (new applications):
• Nature Saskatchewan
• Saskatchewan Arts Board
• Saskatchewan Federation of Labour
• Saskatchewan Environmental Society
• Saskatchewan Writers’ Guild
The following organizations are not being recommended to Senate (new applications):
• Persephone Theatre
• AKA Artist-Run Centre
• Canadian Arts Representation le front des artistes canadiens (CARFAC SASK)
• Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives – Saskatchewan
113
CRITERIA FOR ASSESSING ELIGIBILITY FOR MEMBERSHIP OF ORGANIZATIONS ON THE
UNIVERSITY OF SASKATCHEWAN SENATE
Excerpts from the University of Saskatchewan Act 1995
24(1) The senate is composed of:
…
(f) one representative from each professional society or other organization designated pursuant to subsection (3).
24(3) For the purposes of clause (1)(f) the members of the senate mentioned in clauses (1)(b) and (c) may
designate professional societies or other oganizations that, in the opinion of those members:
(a) contribute in a significant way to the social, economic and cultural welfare of Saskatchewan; and
(b) have a demonstrated interest in furthering the goals of higher education and research at the
university.
24(4) At least once every five years, the members of the senate mentioned in clauses (1)(b) and (c) shall:
(a) review the status of professional societies or other organizations having representatives in the senate
to determine whether they should continue to send a representative to be a member of the senate;
and
(b) consider applications by professional societies or other organizations wishing to have representatives
in the senate to determine whether they should be allowed to send a representative to be a member
of the senate.
Criteria for membership and continued membership
1. Licensing and professional bodies for professions that are taught at the University, or for professions
for which the University provides preparatory study, should be invited to send a representative to
Senate, on the advice of the relevant dean(s). In general where there is both a national or
international and a provincial association, the provincial association will be invited to send the
representative.
2. The alumni associations for the University of Saskatchewan and the University of Regina will each be
invited to send a representative.
3. Educational institutions are not themselves eligible for membership but may be represented by
associations such as the Association of Regional Colleges or the Saskatchewan School Boards
Association.
4. Cultural and business organizations may be considered for membership if they meet the criteria in
the act and
a. Their members represent a significant constituency of stakeholders within Saskatchewan, and
b. The goals and aims of the organization are consistent with the strategic directions of the
university.
5. An organization whose delegate misses two consecutive senate meetings or whose delegate
position remains vacant for two consecutive senate meetings will be notified by the chancellor, with
a copy to the delegate, that should their delegate miss the next meeting following, their
membership be revoked. Organizations may designate an alternate in accordance with Bylaw XII.3 if
their delegate will be unable to attend a meeting. Any organization whose membership is revoked
may re-apply for membership after one year.
Approved April 18, 2009
With revisions April 2010
114
AGENDA ITEM NO: 10.4
Senate Round Table on Outreach and Engagement
Report to Senate
Heather Magotiaux
Secretary, Senate Round Table on Outreach and Engagement
Vice-President, Advancement and Community Engagement
115
Senate Round Table on Outreach and Engagement
Report to Senate
The Senate Round Table on Outreach and Engagement met on January 17, 2014, to discuss the
TransformUS Support Services Task Force report. In that report, the Task Force recommended that the
Senate Round Table on Outreach and Engagement, along with the President’s Tour and the Regional
Advisory Councils, be placed in the 5th Quintile, recommended for phase out subject to further review.
Specifically, the task force questioned how effective the Round Table had been.
The Round Table met to address three questions:
1. How effective do you, as a member of the Round Table, feel this body has been?
2. Do you believe the objectives of the Round Table could be better met by another, existing structure
or function?
3. What would you propose as a response to the TransformUS Recommendation?
Several members of the Round Table were unable to attend the meeting. Vice-President Magotiaux, as
Secretary to the Round Table, contacted each of those unable to attend via telephone and obtained their
feedback as well. All perspectives have been incorporated into this document.
How effective do you, as a member of the Round Table, feel this body has been?
Members generally felt the Round Table had initially been very effective in establishing a framework for
Outreach and Engagement at the University of Saskatchewan, and in identifying barriers and possible
solutions for more effective engagement. All members emphasized the importance of outreach and
engagement to the university’s mission.
However, members also generally felt that the Round Table had become less effective, and gave a variety
of reasons why this might be so. First, members commented on the establishment of infrastructure such as
Station 20 West, English River, and the Office of Outreach and Engagement as more effective means of
carrying out the Round Table’s mandate. As one member said, “the Round Table came together for a
purpose, and that purpose is now fulfilled.”
Second, the membership of the Round Table was seen as a limitation. The membership is small and diverse,
which has resulted in a fairly general focus. That was helpful in the earlier days as the Round Table’s work
was more foundational in nature, but was seen as less useful now. Several members spoke of the possibility
of reframing the Round Table into a series of Round Tables, focused on specific areas such as industry
engagement, fine arts engagement, engagement in the North, etc.
And finally, some members suggested that, given the high priority placed on outreach and engagement in
the last two integrated planning cycles, the current need was for better coordination of outreach and
engagement activities, and the Round Table as structured was not capable of fulfilling that function.
116
Do you believe the objectives of the Round Table could be better met by another, existing structure or
function?
Several members referenced the investment made by the University in an Office of Outreach and
Engagement, and saw that as a mechanism for activities such as organizing the Engaged Scholar Day,
hosting the Engaged Scholar Journal, and providing enhanced coordination of activities.
Members also referenced the communities of practice among faculty engaged in community-engaged
scholarship and/or experiential learning as a way for faculty to come together, as well as physical locations
such as Station 20 West.
Many members spoke positively of the benefits of the President’s Tour. The tour was seen as a catalyst to
bring community members within Senate districts together to discuss university initiatives and ways that
the university might engage communities in its work. Some members suggested expanding the tour to
include deans so as to deepen connections in specific fields.
Members also discussed the role of Regional Advisory Councils, and concluded that, while it was beneficial
to bring community leaders together with university officials for specific purposes, that could be
accomplished as needed. The formal mechanism of a Regional Advisory Council was not generally seen as
necessary. This sentiment was echoed by a previous meeting of chairs of the Regional Advisory Councils
that took place on October 18, 2013.
What would you propose as a response to the TransformUS Recommendation?
The members suggested that the University does need a way to connect with the external community
regarding outreach and engagement, and should ensure that it has the means to do so. The Round Table
costs very little to operate, but it may be useful to focus our efforts elsewhere. If the Round Table were to
continue, the university should consider establishing sub-groups that focus on specific elements (one
example given was tech transfer), and should be action-oriented rather than simply a forum for discussion.
117
AGENDA ITEM: 11.3
The university’s Policy on the Development, Approval and Administration of University
Policies defines a coordinated and consistent process for identification, development,
approval and administration of all university policies, both administrative and academic.
Responsibility for implementation of the Policy is assigned to a Policy Oversight Committee
(POC). Membership includes the Vice-provosts, all Associate Vice-presidents, the Director
of Corporate Administration, and representatives from Council and Deans Council. Terms
of Reference for the Committee establish it as an advisory committee to the University
Secretary, with a mandate to coordinate university-level policies.
The Policy Oversight Committee generally meets four times a year: in October, December,
February and May. It is the intention that in these four meetings the Committee considers
the cases made for new policies (review of Notices of Intent), reviews and oversees the
revision of draft policies, oversees activities relating to approval, implementation and
communication of new policies, and undertakes periodic reviews of existing policies for
possible change or removal.
Terms of Reference for the Committee can be found at:
http://policies.usask.ca/policies/general/policy-oversight-committee.php
Policies approved by Governing Bodies between September 2012 and
March 2014
Policy on Management of University Records
Approved by the Board in December 2012,
this policy provides a framework for a
university–wide records management
program, including retention and
disposition schedules for specific record
groups; helps to ensure that university
records are appropriately created, used,
destroyed and/or preserved and are
compliant with relevant legislation
standards and best practices; and defines
roles and responsibilities and
accountabilities for records management.
Academic Courses
Council approved the changes to the
Academic Courses Policy to include a section
on Class Recordings and to update sections
on the course syllabus, in March 2013.
127
Senate Agenda
Discrimination and Harassment
April 26, 2014
The policy was rewritten to update
relevant areas and align with the
university’s policy guidelines, including
the removal of relevant sections more
properly outlined in policy procedures.
The policy also has been broadened to
define the scope to all members of the
university community, including
individuals employed directly or
indirectly at the university, students,
volunteers and visitors.
Additional revisions were reviewed by
the Policy Oversight Committee in
December 2013. Those revisions
included: the definition of “sex” outlined
in the Discrimination and Harassment
Prevention Policy to explicitly include
gender expression and identity, and two
spirit identities. This brings clarity to the
policy, while also acknowledging the
importance of Aboriginal culture and
traditions. The Human Rights
Commission also interprets sex
discrimination to include the above
categories. The Board recently approved
these revisions-March 2014.
Violence Prevention
The violence policy was reviewed and
rewritten to update relevant areas and
contact information, and align with the
university’s policy guidelines.
Revisions were approved by the Board in
March 2013.
Human Research Ethics
June 2013 Council approved the Human
Research Ethics Policy to replace the
Policy on Research Involving Human
Subjects, effective July 1, 2013
Responsible Conduct of Research
June 2013 Council approved the
Responsible Conduct of Research Policy
to replace the Research Integrity Policy,
effective July 1, 2013.
128
Senate Agenda
April 26, 2014
Institutional Cost of Research
Reviewed by the Policy Oversight
Committee and further revised based on
additional comments and feedback
received. The current, variable-rate policy,
Administration of Research Overhead
(approved December 17, 2004), has been
revised to the new Institutional Cost of
Research policy to: align with current
practices of western U15 universities; to
align with the University of Saskatchewan
policy on the Development, Approval and
Administration of University Policies;
and align with the implementation of the
new resource allocation process including
a Transparent Activity-Based Budget
System (TABBS) with full implementation
planned for 2015/16. This new policy was
approved by the Board, March 2014.
Freedom of Information and Protection of
Privacy
Proposed revisions to the Freedom of
Information and Protection of Privacy Policy
were reviewed by the committee in October
2013. The revisions reflect the language in
The Freedom of Information and Protection
of Privacy Act, ensure consistency in
language and format throughout, and reflect
actual practice with respect to freedom of
information and protection of personal
information. The revisions were approved by
the Board in December 2013.
Parking Bylaw Amendments
The majority of the revisions and the
changes to the language of the bylaws
being presented were the result of
recent changes to the manner in which
the bylaws are now enforced. The
committee recommended the revisions
be presented to the March 2014 meeting
of the Board, where they have since been
approved.
129
Senate Agenda
April 26, 2014
Policies reviewed by the Policy Oversight Committee but not yet
approved
Energy and Water Conservation Policy
The intent of this policy is not to
restrict individuals or units from
consuming water and energy, but
rather to influence individuals and
units to consider conservation of
energy where applicable by educating
and increasing awareness of
conservation. The committee
recommended that the policy be
redrafted and brought back for further
discussion.
Mobile Device Management
The committee reviewed the policy and
suggested that it would benefit from being
re-worded by building the guidelines into
actual procedures. The committee also
requested that a description of an
implementation plan be included, and
recommended that the procedures,
including identification of who will be
responsible for updating any changes to
each procedure, accompany the policy to
the Board. The committee also
recommended that the policy go to the
Research Scholarly and Artistic Work
Committee for further consultation.
Policies Deleted administratively – For information
USSU Policies
Two policies that were the responsibility of
the USSU existed as policies in the U of S’s
suite of policies. It was deemed
inappropriate for the U of S to have policies
relating to a third party. Deleted February
2013 from the University’s list of policies.
Policies under review, consideration and/or development
Under review/revision:
*E-Mail
*Data Management, Data Access and Data Use
*Computer Use (*three ICT policies are under revision to address changes in the structure of
the unit)
130
Senate Agenda
April 26, 2014
Policies under review, consideration and/or development cont.
Gift Acceptance
Conflict of Interest
Radiation Safety
Workplace Safety and Environmental Protection
Transfer Credit
Alcohol
Immunization
Religious Observance
Procurement
Tuition Policy
Non-Commercial Use of University Trademarks
Under development
Fraud Deterrence
Safe Disclosure
International Travel Risk Management – Mobility Programs
Code of Business Conduct
131
Senate Agenda
April 26, 2014
2013– 2014 Policy Oversight Committee Membership
Chair:
Elizabeth Williamson University Secretary
Committee members:
Hans Michelmann
Mark Roman
Vice-Chair of Council (Council rep)
AVP, Information & Communications
Technology and CIO
Jim Basinger
AVP, Research
Beth Horsburgh
AVP, Research Health
Jim Germida
Vice Provost, Faculty Relations
Ivan Muzychka
AVP Communications
Laura Kennedy
AVP Financial Services Division
Barb Daigle
AVP Human Resources
Colin Tennent
AVP Facilities Management
Judy Yungwirth
Director, Corporate Administration
Chary Rangacharyulu Council representative
Vice-provost-Teaching and Learning
Patti McDougall
Adam Baxter-Jones Acting Dean, Graduate Studies and
Research (Deans Council Representative)
Also attending:
Amanda Storey
Al Novakowski
Terry Summers
Collene Gerbrandt
Jim Traves
Sheena Rowan
Operations Assistant, (Corp Admin)
(leave)
University Auditor (Observer)
Director, Financial Reporting (for L.
Kennedy)
Labour Specialist, HRD (for B. Daigle)
Director Finance and Trusts
Recording Secretary
132