Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 15:15:09 -0400 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 Jeff happy to set it up - let me know when works for you. On 10/11/10 12:52 PM, Jeff Hollingsworth wrote: > > Jim, > > Larry and I would be happy to talk with you about your concerns. > It probably makes sense for all three of us to talk. I just checked > on my calendar and Larry's, and it looks like it will be late this week > before we are both in the office at the same time. We will try to find > a couple of times to talk and send them to you shortly. > > Thanks, > > Jeff > > > Jim Purtilo wrote: >> >> >> Jeff, I would like to get closure on my question concerning >> procedures for approving special topics courses. As a reminder to the >> context I append one of the several exchanges we had concerning my >> earlier reminders. (This one has most of the text included, but your >> mail log will of course show the other exchanges we had.) >> >> What brings this to a front burner was my surprise earlier this week >> to discover Jeff F's request to develop a new translation course not >> only gets approval to move forward but workload relief. That was a >> good move and I am confident he will do a great job, however it was >> done with none of the apparent vetting that you announced before, and >> more to the point, it all happened in a span of days (if not hours.) >> That's efficient yet I have been waiting since last January (when my >> offerings were rejected) to know what standard I must meet in order >> to prepare and offer upper level undergraduate courses even for free >> (much less for workload or with course relief.) At issue were a >> product assurance course that I had done one way or the other many >> times in the past, and potentially a system >> architecting/administration course. (The latter is a separate matter. >> It might have been supported nicely by the student tech fee hardware >> which we proposed last spring. I was recently surprised to see this >> was funded months ago - I got no notice - and that the department >> will use it to support other activities instead. Good luck with that.) >> >> What this communicates to me unequivocally is that the department >> wants development of novel offerings and courses - just not from me. >> This makes me very frustrated. I talked about this with Larry this >> morning (I appreciated his time, and CC him on this so all renderings >> remain consistent) and in terms of scheduling or courses, there is no >> action item before us. Next year is set. Nevertheless I feel I >> deserve a direct answer to my question. Please tell me whether (and >> why) my proposals are non-starters, or in the alternative, once and >> for all what process is used in proposing an offering at some future >> time. What standard I must meet? Perhaps a copy of the paper trail >> showing how Jeff's translation proposal was evaluated and processed >> would be helpful in illustrating the steps. >> >> Jim >> >> On 4/2/2010 12:57 PM, Jeff Hollingsworth wrote: >>> More like falling off the edge and getting caught before they hit >>> the ground :) >>> >>> Jeff >>> >>> >>> Jim Purtilo wrote: >>>> Okay, I understand this is a busy time of year, so will muster some >>>> more patience - glad to know the requests are not falling off the >>>> edge! :-) >>>> Thanks - Jim >>>> >>>> On 4/2/2010 12:47 PM, Jeff Hollingsworth wrote: >>>>> >>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>