14 September 2010 - University of Waterloo

University of Waterloo
SENATE UNDERGRADUATE COUNCIL
Minutes of the September 14, 2010 Meeting
PRESENT: Geoff McBoyle [chair], Karen Jack [secretary], Jean Andrey, Emanuel Carvalho, Mario Coniglio,
Eric Cousineau, Jennifer Harvey, Peggy Jarvie, Linda Jessup, Ken Lavigne, Wayne Loucks, Brian Maloney,
Ron McCarville, David McKinnon, Barb Moffatt, Maria Polak, Toni Serafini, Dave Smith, Nick Soave,
Brandon Wong
John Kemp, Mark Walker
Sean Van Koughnett, Bud Walker, Heather Westmorland (2); Judene Pretti, Gordon Stubley (3.a, & 3.c)
REGRETS: Jeff Casello, William Chesney, Mavis Fenn, Susan Routliffe, Myroslaw Tataryn,
Piraveena Tharmalingam, Dan Wolczuk
1.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Council heard a motion to approve the June 8, 2010 minutes. Smith and Lavigne. Carried.
2.
NEW-STUDENT TRANSITION PROJECT
McCarville and Westmorland informed council about this initiative which is aimed at enhancing student
success. Council heard that the working group has identified four areas where progress can be made: prearrival orientation opportunities; developing a partnership with parents; early intervention and assistance for
students with precarious academic standing; and streamlining communication. Members heard about the
working group’s desire to strengthen students’ sense of community and about opportunities being explored:
establishing peer mentors; having students write the ELPE in the summer; inviting students to spend a night
in residence before they arrive in the fall; providing parents with information they need to help them help
their student succeed; development of a system to identify students at academic risk; and more coordination
in what’s communicated and when. In discussion, members commended the team on work done so far and
expressed support for the initiative. The team was reminded that students who decide to attend Waterloo at
a late date and 2+2 students might miss some of these opportunities. McCarville noted that extended
learning students had been identified as a group meriting special attention too. McCarville and
Westmorland asked members to discuss the initiative with colleagues and invited input from all sectors.
3.
CURRICULAR ITEMS
a. Co-operative Education Council – September 14, 2010. Following Pretti’s review of the submission,
during which she noted that the coreq for PD 20 should read “COOP 1” not “COOP21”, council heard a
motion to approve it on behalf of Senate. Loucks and Lavigne. Carried.
b. Applied Health Sciences – August 25, 2010. During McCarville’s review of the submission he advised
that the last sentence in part 5.2.1 should change from: “The Standings and Promotions Committee does not
accept selective removal of low grades.” to “The Standings and Promotions Committee does not accept
petitions for selective removal of low grades.” In discussion, McCarville agreed to revise the text in part
5.1.3 from “... may pursue a second degree as an upgrade” to “... may pursue a degree upgraded from
general to honours”, and: “... to be granted the second.” to “... to be granted the upgraded degree.”
Following discussion, council heard motions to forward parts 2 (McCarville and Smith. Carried.) and 5.1.3
(McCarville and Lavigne. Carried.) to Senate for approval and to approve the remainder of the submission
on behalf of Senate: parts 1, 3, 5.1.1 (McCarville and Smith. Carried.); part 4 and the remainder of part 5.
(McCarville and Lavigne. Carried.)
c. Engineering – July 14, 2010. During Loucks’ review of the submission he reported on the PDENG
Renewal Task Force’s Recommendations and advised members that the submission before them represents
the resulting academic plan changes. Loucks advised that the “plan B” option distributed with the agenda
was no longer required and removed it from consideration. Following a review of the changes and options
available to students depending on where they are in their program, Loucks responded to members’
questions. He clarified that the last offering of a PDENG course will occur in winter 2012 and that while the
options available to students beginning studies this fall are complex, the students will have choices. The
engineering student representative endorsed the proposal and indicated that the faculty’s students are “100%
behind” it. Following discussion, council heard a motion to forward part 1.a, and the option for current
Senate Undergraduate Council
September 14, 2010 Minutes
page 2
students to shift to components of the WATPD Engineering model to Senate for approval and to approve
the remainder of the submission on behalf of Senate. Loucks and Cousineau. Carried.
d. Environment – September 14, 2010. During Andrey’s review of the submission she noted that the first
sentence should change from “Students may request to register for Audit status (AUD) in a course taught on
campus.” to “Students may request to register for Audit status (AUD) in a course taught on campus if the
faculty of the course allows audits.” Council heard a motion to approve the submission on behalf of Senate.
Andrey and Soave. Carried.
e. Science – September 2010. Coniglio reviewed the submission and noted that the reference to “PD1” in the
last line of the description of PHARM 120A should instead read “PDPHARM1”. He also noted that the
faculty was seeking exception to council’s effective date rules for several courses. In discussion, Coniglio
confirmed that affected students will be advised about the new and revised courses and agreed to seek
exceptions for only those courses which require it. As a result, the effective date changes from “01-Jan-11”
to “01-May-11” for the following courses: PHARM 322, 368, 369, 370, 371, 372, 460, 461, 464. Council
heard a motion to approve the submission on behalf of Senate. Coniglio and Moffatt. Carried.
4.
UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAM REVIEWS
Society, Technology and Values. After the chair reviewed this report, some concern was expressed about
retaining an option which is not popular (notwithstanding the popularity of individual courses). The chair
agreed to raise this concern with the director. [Secretary’s note: Subsequent to the meeting, the centre’s
director agreed to consider whether to keep the option if enrollment does not increase in the next few years.]
Council heard a motion to forward the report to Senate for information. Lavigne and Smith. Carried.
School of Architecture. After the chair reviewed this report, council heard a motion to forward the report to
Senate for information. McCarville and Andrey. Carried.
5.
REVISED EXAMINATION REGULATIONS AND RELATED MATTERS
After the registrar spoke to the document’s recent revisions, he agreed to include the following statement on
page 4: “No student may write the final examination for a course in which he or she is not enrolled, unless he
or she has the prior consent of the instructor.” Following discussion about some of the document’s provisions,
council received it for information.
6.
NEXT MEETING
Will be held on October 12, 2010 from 12:00 to 2:00 p.m., in NH 3004.
/kjj
September 20, 2010
Approved October 12, 2010
Karen Jack
Executive Assistant