Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2010 13:47:05 -0400 From: Jeff Hollingsworth <hollings@cs.umd.edu> To: Jim Purtilo <purtilo@cs.umd.edu> Subject: Re: Procedures for Special Topics courses I am still behind in responding to you. The new class has been through the field committee involved and was set to happen next spring we moved it forward by a semester since we had to trade some outer courses around. There was a consensus that offering neither 421 nor 424 nor this class would have been a major problem for our students. The solution of moving this class to an earlier term and having the primary instructor be this person (rather than co-taught with another person) was the only tractable solution at the time. Jeff Jim Purtilo wrote: > 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 >>>>