Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 08:42:39 -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, I hope you agree that I've been patient in this request, a matter that in one way or other goes back to December 2009, but the upcoming student registration for fall classes is going to quickly move back for yet another year the window in which we might reasonably contemplate offering additional upper-level classes. There seems otherwise to be no reasonable way for the faculty to make an informed decision about new initiatives they might contemplate. I understand you have much to do, and obviously a meeting has been difficult for you to set up, so let me suggest that you just transmit to me documents I would seek from a meeting in any event. I'd like the written policy statement for how faculty are supposed to get new upper level courses approved by you (which you have made reference to in memos to faculty and have obviously applied), and a description of why I am being treated so very differently from other faculty of same rank and field committee. Still waiting, thanks. - Jim 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 >>>>>>>>>