Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2010 13:41:39 -0500 From: Jim Purtilo <purtilo@cs.umd.edu> To: hollings@cs.umd.edu CC: Larry Davis <lsd@cs.umd.edu> Subject: Re: Procedures for Special Topics courses Hi, Jeff - I notice your announcement in the last day of another 498 being offered for Fall. Perhaps I missed how this was vetted according to the open process outlined in your new rules. Was there really a broad consensus that it is not a branding problem for us to offer an upper level class by someone not a member of professorial faculty? In any event, I have still not heard from you, yet remain interested to know what was the objective basis for running classroom setting 498's for other faculty this semester while mine was denied, and further what process is being applied in order to approve others for next fall while my requests remain unanswered. Thanks much -- Jim On 3/22/2010 11:35 AM, Jim Purtilo wrote: > Hi, Jeff - The break seems to have disrupted our exchange, but to > refresh, I remain interested in answers to my questions below > (obviously at some moment of your convenience, since there is no issue > on fire at the moment.) And to expand, I notice several 498's listed > in the fall, for which presumably our students will be able to > register now. Have these courses already completed the vetting > process your memo outlined, or is there something we as a field > committee ought to be doing very soon? (Two are listed without titles, > and one is just listed as Staff. This seems inconsistent with the new > policy.) Thanks much -- Jim > > On 3/6/2010 11:56 AM, Jim Purtilo wrote: >> Jeff, >> >> It is hardly shared governance if nobody actually shares back >> following your note, so in the spirit of sharing: I'm unsure what >> problem these new procedures will solve. Perhaps you could elaborate? >> >> The policy seems like a lot of bureaucracy for what may or may not be >> intended as a small net change. Can you tell us examples of courses >> in recent years that you would like not to have offered, which this >> process would have eliminated? If there are none, then it would seem >> that in practice we will get to the same end but with far greater >> overhead. If there are some, then it would help us to have exemplars >> for purposes of discussion. >> >> I conclude with three further observations, put on the table in case >> others wish to share. >> >> Cordially, >> >> Jim >> >> >> 1. The policy seems overly restrictive, especially on non-workload >> offerings. >> >> The department's need to plan its official offerings in advance is of >> course obvious to all. There is finite workload capacity and it must >> be allocated to best serve the department mission. How the department >> does this is your call. >> >> The new policy, however, deals in great part with offerings outside >> of that calculus - courses offered as timely opportunities present, >> on behalf of our mission to engage students in materials that >> integrate other course content, and all done in excess of workload >> considerations. >> >> To illustrate, in December I had half a dozen students freshly >> completing 435 who were excited about projects they had just >> completed, and also interested in learning more about quality >> assurance techniques, application roll-out and related issues. I >> agreed to put something together - strike while the iron is hot and >> all that. This is not something I could have specifically predicted 6 >> to 12 months ago, much less vet through the field committee, nor >> likely is it something in this incarnation that would be suitable to >> codify forever. As it is something students take above minimum >> requirements, a lot of the hook for them is the panache of taking a >> tailored course revolving around one of their recent big projects. >> This course would likely not have been suitable for all students, >> certainly not for students who had not taken 435, but it would have >> been offered in excess of my workload obligation. >> >> This was the first course you killed under the new rules, so I hope >> you understand why I feel like the poster child for what the >> department wants to regulate. (A chance to offer a set of individual >> courses rather than a single lecture course was foiled, likely >> because of the undergraduate office's two month delay in the handling >> of my request to list the course, not necessarily because of policy - >> by then most of the students, having been told this could not run, >> found other opportunities. The net effect was the same.) It >> nevertheless seems to me that the department ought not be in the >> business of telling faculty what we may NOT offer. >> >> >> 2. The policy seems dangerously imprecise in treatment of graduate >> courses. >> >> Do we really have an expectation that content in research level >> courses have only one glide path - to codification as an official >> class? Reading the text like any detail geek in SE would, it sure >> sounds like that's the rule though. Surely we need a "use-case >> scenario" that contemplates a regular class format having content >> whose nature evolves quickly. I remain frustrated that breadth >> requirements remain amorphous - that we commonly have students who >> pairwise satisfy the same area need but with non-overlapping content, >> making prep for work in that area 'special.' (My long-standing offer >> remains: I'll cheerfully take a turn teaching core grad courses when >> someone can tell me the objective way to recognize content on which >> we as a faculty have reached consensus.) But that is very different >> from research seminars, and a reasonable person's reading of this >> policy suggests we could be in the position of zapping some seminar >> for having been offered twice without a proposal to turn it into yet >> another amorphous breadth-requirement course. That seems odd. >> >> >> 3. Incentivizing "individual" over "lecture" courses needlessly >> disadvantages the unit. >> >> Someone officially discouraged from offering content as a lecture >> course will be invited, if intent on a course, to proceed under >> individual numbers (which, again from a strict reading of the policy, >> won't be available to us either, though I'm guessing that was not the >> intent.) >> >> As purely a business matter, however, we know campus bean counters >> obsess on seat count. Individual or even seminar courses factor into >> their spreadsheets very differently, if at all. CS gets more credit >> for seats of one kind than the other. It seems a shame to give up >> that value, especially if workload is not at issue. >> >> To illustrate, a number of you offering 8x8 classes this year will >> likely be cited by campus as deficient under workload because >> (apparently starting this year) your regular course became offered as >> variable (1-3) rather than fixed credit. It is a nuance only bean >> counters could love, but that is one of the ways that IRPA recognizes >> something is not a "real" class. Now, IRPA lives in an alternate >> universe, so don't try to understand that, but the consequence back >> in our world is that someone could theoretically be told that he or >> she owes another course. (In practice, it means Pat will have to talk >> faster in justifying your load when the annual report is due this >> summer.) This makes clear that HOW we offer courses makes an >> administrative difference to CS. >> >> >> On 3/5/2010 12:57 PM, Jeff Hollingsworth wrote: >>> >>> Howard, Larry, and I have been working to develop a consistent approach >>> to handling special topics courses at both the undergrad and >>> graduate level. >>> >>> Please find attached a proposed procedure to be followed with these >>> courses. >>> >>> Feel free to let us know of any concerns you might have. >>> >>> >>> Jeff >>>