Talk:Simon Fraser University

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Education in Canada, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Education in Canada. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Vancouver Portal	This article is part of WikiProject Vancouver, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada and the surrounding metropolitan area. To participate, edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	If you have rated this article please consider adding assessment comments.

	This article is part of WikiProject British Columbia, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to British Columbia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.	British Columbia Portal
B	This article has been rated as b-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
	If you have rated this article please consider adding assessment comments.

An anon just added the following unsourced (and incomplete) statement, and I've moved it here for discussion:

"SFU has the largest undergraduate History department in Middle East and Islamic studies."

First it needs a source, and second it needs a qualifier since I'm pretty sure it doesn't have the largest in the universe. Does anyone know where this claim comes from?  — Saxifrage | ☎ 09:51, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The history department's ego, that's where. More brochure bumpf, like "the most beautiful setting", the "unique ethnic composition" and all that; self-flatulating aggrandizement is one of SFU officialdom's modern hallmarks.Skookum1 17:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Nicknames and the real dirt 2 "Simon Fraser University" as "Fraser University" in the early days? 3 Still a "strongly left wing" campus? 4 This article nominated for WikiProject Vancouver Collaboration of the Month 5 Demographic composition statement 6 Downtown facilities/campi 7 Aquilini 8 Images 9 "Research" section sounds like a press release 10 SFU Surrey image 11 Political history 12 Coast of Arms/Crest

[edit] Nicknames and the real dirt

The whole article at this point sounds like a promotional sheet or gladrag from the university's administration/marketing department. The political turmoil of the 1960s is passed over in a few short lines without saying what went on - even though the university's 40th anniversary used the slogan "radical by design" for a rendezvous that had all the wild panache of a church social (and not a single sandal-clad furry radical in sight). Surely there's someone out there "who was there"; cites would have to come from the Peak and newspaper reports of the day, and I wouldn't know where to start.

Nicknames that should appear in the article somewhere - "Snafu' and "Sfoo". Students up there these days are so straight-laced they probably don't dare use them, however.Skookum1 18:38, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree, it does sound like a promotional sheet at times. I'm too lazy to search, but I suspect it may be. Should a NPOV tag be slapped on it? Jjjsixsix 03:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The university press relations office, whatever it's called now, probably has someone whose duties include monitoring and editing it IMO. If so, and you're reading this, why don't you identify yourself for us?Skookum1 18:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

.

This article is an absolute promotional concoction that does not belong in Wikipedia. What for example does the MBA-program have to do with the student activism in the 1960s? President Stevenson himself, in his latest Fall convocation speech rejected the political meaning of "radical" and according to him "radical campus" refers to the searching for innovation. Something should be done to improve the informative quality of this article. What's an NPOV tag? --Tmstapf

Hi Tmstapf. I agree that this page needs more attention but I don't understand your question: "What for example does the MBA-program have to do with the student activism in the 1960s?" The first Executive MBA program and student activism are both factual and verifiable historic aspects of SFU. I see on your user page that you attend SFU, so if you think "something should be done", don't sit back and wait for someone else — how about tagging claims you think are NPOV, or without citation, or in violation of any other policies and guidelines? P.S. - it's a good idea to sign your contributions on talk pages others can properly respond. Cheers to making a better article! --Ds13 23:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

How can you not undertsand Tmstapf's comment about radicalism and MBAism being incompatible? By definition someone studying an MBA is counter-radical and a tool/patsy of the establishment; unless you're using "radical" in the newspeak sense that Pres. Stephenson has retooled it to, it's pretty obvious what that means. I was at SFU when the MBA program was brought in, or shortly after anyway, and all those shirt-and-tie crowd (w. jacket) were contemptuous of the "radical" atmosphere that then still was much in evidence; hippie-ism, countercultural attitudes and interdisciplinary fun, a pub that actually made a profit and people actually hung out in, and ideas that weren't locked into ideological doctrinaire by-rote twaddle (as in Arts everywhere now) or corporate rationalizations for things like an MBA program. An MBA program, like so much else up there right now, is not an intellectual pursuit, but a professional one, and should have been put into a polytechnic rather than what was supposed to be an institution for higher learning. Although these days, "higher learning" has been re-defined by types like Stephenson in the same way that "radical" has. I heard some of the "jazz" that they enlisted for various events up there this last year; not a hippie acid-rock band in sight, and the jazz was tepid; reminded me of the Social Credit passion for Dixieland played by white guys in boaters....Skookum1 18:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Simon Fraser University" as "Fraser University" in the early days?

There have been some rumours saying that SFU was originally called "Fraser University" during its first years, but had to change the name into what it is today because its abbreviation was too...interesting. Does anyone know more about it, or is it just a rumour?

Just a rumour; never heard of it. As if the Socreds would deliberately name something for an unflattering acronym; flattering acronyms, yes, unflattering ones, no. Rumours about the genesis of SFU seem to abound lately; there was a Peak article last summer by some sophomore, no doubt on a material history project, trying to "deconstruct" the "myths" about the Quad; too many weirdnesses to begin describing were in there, but among them was the notion that the pond, trees and "mountain" in the quad were supposed to represent CANADA's lakes, forests and mountains; that's a new one on me; the tour guides in the '70s and '80s always had the story "right" - the symbology of that myth is British Columbia's lakes, forests and mountains. Not that this was in Erickson's plans, or even the landscaping company's; it was all by happenstance that the design came together; it was a reporter or one of those receiving honorary degrees who coined the thing about the geographic symbolism of the Quad; but the symbology was British Columbian, not Canadian. I've noticed in recent years that there's been a fuzzification of many historical details in BC to accommodate the limited worldview (ahem) of those moving here to make our history more palatable/understandable to them; I guess this is why Toronto needs to use Vancouver's old nickname (Big Smoke) but I draw the line when revision of local mythography takes place; like Storyeum's episode on "Hudson's Bay trading ships". Ok, OK, there was the Otter and the Beaver, but it's not as if they heyday of the maritime fur trade had ANYTHING to do with the HBC, or anything else Canadian for that matter.....Skookum1 09:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Still a "strongly left wing" campus?

From the Reputation section of the article: SFU has retained a reputation for being an overall strongly left wing campus. Is this just wishful nostalgia or does SFU deserve a strong left wing label today? Obviously, this is perceptual and opinion-based. Perhaps evidence for or against this claim would consist of left-right opinion polls of student and faculty. Me, I see a university that emphasizes partnerships with the private sector, and more satellite campuses emphasizing business, entrepreneurship, and enterprise. Nothing wrong with that, and it still leaves plenty of room for a left wing population. I may just not be noticing it. Thoughts? --Ds13 19:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

When I was still a student there couple years ago it did seem like student activist groups and those involved with the student society are strong left wing types. However, the general student population don't really seem to care either way. attitude. Achou79 07:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I've changed this. One can no longer say it currentlly is "strongly left wing" compared to other universities.

The student socitey usually is left-wing, but most students societies in Canada are. The perception also depends on the schools/departments. If a study were done, political science might have a left-wing reputation, but I doubt engineering would.

You also have to consider the stance of the administration. The administration just approved a private, for-profit college on the campus of the school aimed at recruiting and retaining international students (who likely will then transfer to SFU) by a company called IBT Education. It is very controversial, but it is has been approved by the adminstration and passed by the university senate, and is coming to SFU. It will be the first such deal with a public university in Canadian history. This private-public parternship is not left-wing (quite the contrary, actually).

Doing a poll of political views of students at the university, you would also likely find them to be the same as the views at other post-secondary campuses in Vancouver, and the same as many universites across Canada.

Mainly, the view that the university is "strongly left wing" comes from older people that have a stereotype for the university.

One note, I don't think "radical by design" is intended to be any kind of political statement.

Drdestiny77 06:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article nominated for WikiProject Vancouver Collaboration of the Month

The article being discussed here is a nominee for Vancouver collaboration of the month. If you wish to add your vote on it, please go to WP:VCOTM. --Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 02:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Demographic composition statement

SFU's ethnic composition is quite unique because of the demographic composition of Burnaby and surrounding areas and because international students make up 7% of its student body.

Just not so; the int'l student item is correct, but Burnaby's demographic's don't have anything to do with SFU's. The high number of parachuted erstwhile "resident" students who are actually int'l students (but not in name or status) is blatantly obvious to anyone who spends much time on the hill; but that's the result not of Burnaby's ethnic composition but because of the way educational marketing has gone, and also because many "resident" status students are holding passports-of-convenience and are not otherwise "Canadian", except as defined within the loosey-goosey parameters of multicultural=Canadian. There were days at SFU in a recent couple of semesters spent there when I rarely heard English except in class, or with people I knew.

To me, the quote above is a product of the poor logic and poor evidentiary standards/concepts which are now "taught" at SFU and other schools. "Pursuit of excellence", a neocorporate buzzphrase which has cut the soul out of what used to be academia, has little to do with intellectual or linguistic skills, but with higher grades (and higher fees)Skookum1 18:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Downtown facilities/campi

There's a section on SFU Surrey; there should be sections on the new business and arts schools downtown, plus that Harbour Centre ex-dept store place that's filled with corporate-promo logos on the seminar rooms (amazing what a few dozen grand can buy a corporation in the way of advertising/namespace, when they don't actually contribute much else to education other than buying the nameplate for a seminar room, huh?.Skookum1 18:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aquilini

The following was deleted from the SFU article recently:

Francesco Aquilini, head of the Aquilini Investment Group based in Vancouver,
obtained a Business Administration degree from SFU. On November 17, 2004,
Aquilini signed a deal with John McCaw, previous owner of the Vancouver Canucks
and became a 50% owner of the team and the sports arena GM Place.

The reason was, "Who's this? Not important enough to get his own paragraph." [1]

I personally think that the paragraph should stay but I want to avoid the possibility of an edit war so I'm going to see what everyone else thinks first. Do you guys think this paragraph should remain or should it stay deleted? --Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 04:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The concept of "famous alumni" is subjective and just seems so prone to endless POV and vanity problems. Regarding this Aquilini person, I guess I'd say "big deal, a business major graduated and did well in business"... This would be relatively expected, I hope. Is this person "famous"? I don't think so. Notable in a page about SFU? Probably not. Mentioning the date and details of one business deal seems suspect, for sure. Wikipedia has a guideline for the notability of people, which may be relevant (certainly to Aquilini's own article). --Ds13 05:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images

The image captioned as "Convocation Mall" really isn't, since the mall is beyond the stairs and beyond another courtyard with a different name, and can't even be seen in the picture. I would remove it, but I have another image in mind that I uploaded to commons and I don't want to be seen as "sneaking" my photo in for some kind of ego boost thing. The image of the library at right is what I have in mind. — Saxifrage ✎ 11:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I uploaded that image, and I apologize for naming it wrong since, frankly, I don't go to SFU. (Well, seems like I was refering to the roof back then, argh) But I'd think removing it is too harsh when you can just change the caption....and please don't hesitate to put your own image in the article. :) deadkid_dk 13:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

It's an interesting picture, yes. I can't think of a caption about a specific place to use ("The stairs between the Rotunda and the...") but maybe something about it being an example of Arthur Erikson's architectural style?

(I'd normally be fine about adding my picture if I hadn't also been intending to remove that one at the same time. I knew that if I was pulling one picture to put in my own that I'd be risking bad feelings and the appearance of self-promotion. So, I decided to take the long way of doing it.) — Saxifrage ✎ 20:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure, please make the necessary changes. deadkid_dk 01:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Research" section sounds like a press release

The entire research section, talking about the awards won and the move toward 'excellence' does not seem very NPOV -- it sounds like something put out by the PR office of the university. In particular the line "Long known as an innovative teaching university, SFU has moved toward research excellence" should be either made quantitative or dropped. (How many papers are published by SFU faculty per year as compared to other schools in Canada, and compared to other schools in the world?) Also it would be nice to see a list of famous faculty members (e.g. the Borwein brothers, the woman in Criminology who was on the cover of Time....) Spebudmak 18:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

"Excellence", "world-class", "innovative" and all the rest of that language are part of the Fraser Institute/BC Liberal newspeak that dominates public media in BC. All vomit-generating spew, but they sure like to use it ad nauseam; like the claim that the Bog is a "world-class training facility" when it doesn't even have dumbbells that aren't bent, only a few machines, and a bossy training coach who's into keeping everyone not under his immediate thumb out of the room; all at student rec fees expense, of course; the equipment's old, the door locks at 8, and there's not enough weights (and what few there are often don't match). But in their writeups and press releases, it's "world-class". In attitude, certainly....Skookum1 18:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SFU Surrey image

I've updated the caption to the Central City (SFU Surrey) image, as it's (no longer) correct. It said that SFU Surrey occupied the lower, rectangular portion, when in fact they now occupy the 14th and 15th floors of the Central City tower. DoctorElmo 01:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Political history

This article will not be complete without a discussion of the PoliSci-Soc-Anthro (PSA) Department and its eventual disbandment, and the associated political fracas that went on in the university's "founding years". These events were "highly notable" and documentable as well, even though they're shoved under the rug up at SFU all the time, as they have been here (as I remember they were here in earlier versions of the page). I don't date back that far myself, and it's all kind of hazy to me, but I know it's important enough that it shouldn't be omitted from this page; and important enough that once it's put back in or put in properly, it shouldn't be a candidate for deletion/censorship by the university's multi-headed watchdogs who patrol this page - which reads like a brochure, and has next to nil student content; in "careful" language, the kind of re-branding that makes the new-polytechnic flavour of modern SFU such an unpleasant experience for those use to the more collegial times when people weren't just in school to prep for a life of credit ratings and "career advancement", but actually to "get an education" (not just "get a degree") and become someone. I'll repeat my earlier comments that this page reads like a promotional brochure, and also point any SFU staffers, especially from the Public Relations Dept., to WP:COI.

[edit] Coast of Arms/Crest

I made the amendment to the Coat of Arms thing because it should be clearly stated why the daggers were removed, i.e. to satisfy orthodox Muslim students who chose to be offended by the "Crusader daggers" (that's citable, but I don't have Peak archives handy); Jews, Buddhists, Hindus and Sikhs were not offended and raised no outcry; only Muslims; even us quasi-agnostic ex/semi-Christians weren't offended by religious symbols - heraldic symbols, actually, long lost of religious assocations. I wonder - my maternal-side family crest has three large crescents on it - should I replace them with crosses or rosettes since I'm not Muslim? And the Fraser tartan - isn't that offensive to Campbells? Shouldn't it be replaced as well? Sheesh.... Skookum1 19:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I just undid an IP address edit, from a location in Ottawa, which zeroed in on my change and pronounced it "erroneous" without providing a cite. This particular IP address - 142.58.129.100 - has only one edit in its history, but others with the same 142.58.*.* series also have only a few edits, all to do with SFU, and particularly to do with the Coat of Arms thing; "someone has an agenda" here, and to me it's an agenda of soft-soaping something that's written clear as day and should be stated as such; the "Crusader daggers" thing was in the Peak and also in mainstream media coverage of the controversy, so how can it be "erroneous"? There's soft-soap all over this page but this was one particularly glaring example; another is on how the new readin'n'writin' requirements/courses are to "improve the core capabilities of students" while in actuality it's to address the deplorable English-language skills of many students, ESL or otherwise, which is an inheritance from the degrading of writing/reading skills in public schools/curriculum; I've seen fourth-year papers get an "A" when they wouldn't have gotten barely a "C" in what should be Grade 11 levels of English, the rationale usually being that the person "did they best they could". Too long a discussion to condense into the article, but presenting the remedial reading/writing program as if if it were some kind of great post-secondary achievement is, well, kind of an over-sell, and inherently dishonest, too. Like so much at SFU, though....Skookum1 22:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)