Posts tagged ‘research university’

6 Stories of Failure in Changing Higher Education: Misunderstanding Organizational Context

Last month, I had a birthday. It was not one of those big end-with-a-zero birthdays, but it was still notable. I can now get “senior” discounts from my local grocer. That’s something. Coincidentally, this month also begins my 25th year at Georgia Tech.

I’ve been reading about failure CV’s, a list of the usually-invisible things that go wrong in an academic’s career. The goal is to show that failure is quite common and that success is often a matter of luck. I’m not sure I can remember all my failed papers and proposals. I can remember a list of failures that relate to both my “senior” age and my years at Georgia Tech.

Below is a list of stories where I failed in an organizational context. In each of these, I proposed something that didn’t fly because I didn’t understand the organizational structure of higher education in general and Georgia Tech specifically. This isn’t a comprehensive list. I failed a lot more than this! I’m picking stories that offer lessons I’ve learned about the challenges of making educational initiatives in higher education, especially ones that I expect are useful in other organizations. I’m listing these in roughly chronological order.

Short form: Other computing educators may want to try these things. Didn’t work for me, and here’s why. Avoid my mistakes.

Entrepreneurial activity in education research often requires organization action or change, like new courses, new degree programs, adopting new teaching practices, or starting to teach a new population. I’ve been successful at some of this, like starting the Media Computation class and offering a variety of learning opportunities through “Georgia Computes!” Think of the stories in this list as startup ideas or business plans that don’t convince venture capitalists. These didn’t take off because I didn’t understand the market or the investors.

Side note: I’m also writing this for catharsis. Failures in organizational contexts are more painful than proposal or paper rejections. First, organizational failures are not anonymous — you are associated with the proposal, and you usually get the “no” to your face. Second, they gnaw at me. Could it have gone differently if I’d pitched it differently? To a different person? Maybe I could pitch it today and it would be different? Or is too late because the organization remembers that I already had my shot?

Story #1: A Computer Science Education Research Center

About 15 years ago, I wrote a memo proposing a Computer Science Education Research Center. (Yes, I still have it.) We had (and have) great computing education researchers, a large cohort of instructional faculty, and tons of students. The idea was to identify problems in the classrooms, develop solutions collaboratively between tenure-track faculty researchers and instructional faculty, try them out in the classrooms, and then publish and iterate. It was all about using our classrooms and students as a giant design-based research laboratory.

I’ve seen this work at places like UCSD, Duke, Stanford, and U. Toronto. It didn’t fly here, for reasons that are obvious in hindsight. The instructional faculty did not want tenure-track faculty telling them how to teach. The tenure-track faculty do not understand everything that it takes to keep huge classrooms running week-after-week, semester-after-semester. What happens when there are disagreements? There would likely be an awkward tension because of power relationships between tenure-track and instructional faculty.

The instructional faculty at Georgia Tech’s College of Computing have been overwhelmingly helpful with our Computing Education Research. Between encouraging their students to participate in our experiments, to letting us into their classrooms for observations, our lecturers and instructors support computing education research. I deeply appreciate their support. But it’s too big of an ask to have instructors change their teaching practice, or harder still, to implement an intervention in one semester and deny the intervention to another section of the same class (as a control/comparison).

I think it works at UCSD, Duke, Stanford, and U. Toronto because the instructional faculty are the computing education researchers. Changing your own courses for reasons you appreciate and value is different than doing it because researchers in a Center ask it of you. Doing it collaboratively (maybe even using some classes as control/comparisons) can lead to great research. It doesn’t work as well when the change comes from someone(s) other than the teacher.

In the end, what I proposed flew in the face of academic freedom. That faculty can teach using the methods that they think is best is a core principal in academic freedom. That’s a big part of what makes this job attractive. With rising numbers of students to teach and too few CS PhD’s becoming academics these days, we need to make the job more attractive, not add more restrictions.

Story #2: The Weight of Teacher Development Regulations

During the early years of Georgia Computes!, we realized that preparing more computing teachers was going to be critical to success. Barbara and I were part of a statewide committee to create a computer science teacher endorsement. I wanted Georgia Tech to offer computer science education classes towards certification for teachers with a goal of being a provider for the endorsement. I was particularly eager for us to use on-line learning technologies, so that teachers in other states (maybe even in other countries?) might use this program. I was sure that the name of “Georgia Tech” would help to sell the program to teachers.

My Chair (head of my School) told me that it was a bad idea, and he would not support my proposal. His reasoning was simple — we didn’t have a School of Education. Any kind of program that leads to a teaching certification involves a lot of regulation and paperwork. Georgia Tech didn’t have any programs like that. The regulatory and bureaucratic costs would have been totally new and likely large.

He was right. Three Universities eventually offered the endorsement in Georgia. All three did it through a collaboration between the Computer Science departments and existing Schools of Education. If your university is already doing teacher certification, adding computer science is a marginal cost. If your university wasn’t, you likely don’t know what you’re getting into. Now that I know more about how different states handle teacher certification, I realize how much of the process is defined by state regulation and legislation. I should have figured out the cost of my proposal before I made it.

Story #3: Apprenticeship and Conscience over Diversity Efforts

Several years ago, I became aware of teaching practices in one of our classes that I believed were likely impacting retention of female students (as mentioned in this blog post). I didn’t have any evidence that the practices were impacting retention. I critiqued the practices as an opinion of a researcher who studies diversity in computing education. I wanted to change our teaching practices in introductory CS courses in order to improve retention of women following recommendations of groups like NCWIT. I was unsuccessful.

When I first realized that there was a problem, I approached senior tenure-track faculty in my school. I described the practices I was concerned with — and they were unconcerned. The practices I described were pretty common in industry. But what about changing practices, maybe changing industry, trying to make industry more welcoming for women? I was running into a conflict that I’d seen in my faculty workshops. There are five common perspectives on what a teacher should be. I tend to take a “social reform” perspective (let’s use school to change society) or a “developmental” perspective (let’s start from where students are). But the most common teaching perspective among the CS faculty I’ve queried is “apprenticeship” — the job of the CS teacher is to model good software development behavior and to coach students in following those practices. In that perspective, it’s more important to teach current industry practice than to try to change what’s in industry. One perspective is not better than the other. “Apprenticeship” is a valid perspective for teaching CS, and I get the argument.

I had lunch with one of our most senior instructors, and I raised my concerns. He told me that he was worried about women going into the Tech industry. He went on to talk about the working conditions and how there were much better jobs for women. I was angry, thinking that he was saying that women couldn’t do these jobs or didn’t belong in Computing. I later reflected on what he said, and realized that my first reaction was wrong.

He was having a crisis of conscience, I now believe. Our instructors pay attention to what’s going on at Uber and at Google much more than the average tenure-track faculty. The instructors see their jobs as producing students who will go work in the Tech industry. My colleague was saying that he didn’t want to send women there, given how they’d be treated and what the Tech industry is like.

I don’t know what to tell him. When I tell women this story, they often ask, “Who is he to say what women should or shouldn’t do?” Fair response, but being concerned about what students should or shouldn’t do, or even having to decide who belongs and who should be encouraged to leave CS — that’s an occupational hazard of being a CS teacher. They make those decisions every day.

The lesson learned from this story is that I didn’t think hard enough about the forces that keep things the way they are, the motivations of the decision-makers. I didn’t think about my market before I pitched my product.

Story #4: The Tensions between State Governments and State Universities

In 2014, the Georgia Governor announced that he was making an initiative to push coding in Georgia’s schools (see my blog post here on that announcement). The next year, we had a terrific CS Education faculty candidate. My chair and I came up with an idea. We wanted to ask the Governor to fund an effort to innovate and promote coding in Georgia schools, building on our successful work in “Georgia Computes!” We wanted funding to hire this CS Ed candidate as part of this effort. We drew up a one-page pitch to the Provost, and a draft letter to the Governor (in our Provost’s name) to make the request. Our Dean took these to a face-to-face meeting with the Provost.

The next day, my chair and I received a reprimand from the upper administration for contacting the Governor without permission! Somewhere there was a misunderstanding, because we had not contacted anyone in state government. My chair cleared things up with the Provost, and we learned why there was such a strong reaction.

I had not realized how sensitive relationships are these days between state universities and state governments. States are providing less funding to their universities. Universities are understandably careful about what they ask for. Georgia Tech desperately needed a new building at the time. The Provost did not want to send mixed signals to the state government. For example, he didn’t want to give them the idea that the coding in Georgia initiative would be preferable to the building they needed.

I get it. Relations between state governments and universities are strained. You don’t want a rogue faculty member messing up the priorities, and you certainly have to be careful what you put on the wishlist. I didn’t realize that I was touching on such a sensitive negotiation.

Story #5: Teaching High School Students does not pay for MOOCs

Last year, I decided the best chance to get computer science into Georgia’s rural high schools was not Advanced Placement but dual enrollment. I told this story on Blog@CACM. I started the process of building a MOOC that would be equivalent to our CS1315 Media Computation class to offer to Georgia high school students as dual enrollment. We already have distance Calculus offered to rural high schools from Georgia Tech, but that’s delivered via special video links. I wanted to do a MOOC so that it could be more widely available.

The head of distance learning said no. MOOCs are expensive to build. We only build them if we can see a way to cover those costs. We couldn’t recoup the costs if we offered the MOOC to high school students.

Turns out that the Georgia legislature has capped the amount that universities can charge for dual enrollment tuition, and that amount does not cover Georgia Tech’s costs for MOOC development and hosting. Our head of online learning is trying to get that changed, to get the cap raised. Offering a CS MOOC for dual enrollment under those conditions would be a bad move in that negotiation.

I understand the issue. While the OMS CS is famous for being inexpensive, it’s not free. The financial model that we have for online education doesn’t work for high school students, which does have to be essentially free. We are now offering an online MOOC-based CS1 for CS majors, but that was paid for by an external funder. Maybe if I found an external funder, Georgia Tech would be willing to let me develop the MOOC. However, even the new CS1 MOOC is not available to Georgia high school students for dual enrollment. The political issue has not been resolved.

The lesson here is (again) that I should have figured out the costs of my proposal before I pitched it. I should have also figured out the politics before we started. A 10 minute conversation with the head of online education would have saved weeks of planning.

Story #6: Education Research can be Dangerous for Well-Ranked Technical Institutions

Last Spring, I got the chance to visit three engineering education programs, all of which have engineering education PhD students. I wondered whether we could build something similar here. There are several efforts on our campus to study STEM education, to be innovative in STEM education, and to evaluate novel interventions. These efforts have graduate students, and it would be great to be able to offer them a graduate certificate or even a degree. I asked the Provost for a meeting to discuss creating a STEM education research graduate certificate or degree.

The Provost started the meeting saying that there would never be a degree or academic unit at Georgia Tech with the word “education” in the title. He explained that education research is outside the unique mission of Georgia Tech. There are other education programs in the University System of Georgia. They can do STEM education research. The Georgia Institute of Technology should focus on technological advances.

I told my Dean this story, and he gave me new insight into the Provost’s motivations. The Dean thought that “never” was too strong, but he did have a specific criteria about whether to back this kind of an effort. “Which of our peer institutions has a STEM education research graduate certificate?” Georgia Tech (and the College of Computing) is well ranked. You have to be careful with that kind of ranking. You want to innovate, but you don’t want to do things that might make your peers think you’re weakening your research focus. Education research might be perceived as taking resources from technological research. It would be okay to do, if we didn’t go first.

I had not really thought through how Deans and Provosts evaluated new programs. They have a sense of mission, and new program proposals are evaluated against that mission. I should have tried to figure out the criteria first, before I made my proposal.

Conclusions

After the last story, one of the other Deans kindly reached out me. He told me, “Never is a long time.” Institutions change. Missions evolve. I am a post-Full Professor (as I described here). He suggested that I wait. There will be more opportunities for change later.

So what does work for higher education change? There’s another whole blog post to write about how Media Computation, Threads, and Georgia Computes actually worked, but I can generalize as the inverse of the above failures. Before you make a pitch like one of these, think about the motivations of the decision-makers. “It will improve learning” is rarely motivating for a higher-education administrator. “It will improve retention” is also unlikely to win, unless the low retention rate is a cost (e.g., students failing a required class may mean more students re-take the class, which costs in future enrollments). Fixing a known problem, reducing costs, improving stature, bringing in additional resources, and increasing fame — those are motivators for administrators and other higher-education decision-makers.

Mitchel Resnick has a new book out on Lifelong Kindergarten (see Amazon link). The interview with him on NPR about the new book is terrific. I particularly like Mitchel’s final quote, and it’s an apt conclusion to these stories:

I sometimes describe myself as a short-term pessimist and a long-term optimist.

I know how difficult it is to shift systems and mindsets. But I see the needs of societies changing so much, that the kinds of approaches in the book make so much sense, that ultimately we’ll win out. It’s what keeps me going. I’ve dedicated my life to this.

October 9, 2017 at 7:00 am 4 comments

Preparing Tomorrow’s Faculty to Address Challenges in Teaching Computer Science

I’ve blogged here when we have opened registration for the New Computing Faculty workshops (e.g., here), but I haven’t really explained why we’re doing them.  We took a lot of grief on Twitter for the workshops in the Spring, and 120 characters just isn’t enough to explain the whole story. We (Leo Porter, Cynthia Lee, Beth Simon, and me) wrote an article that appeared in the May CACM explaining the rationale.  If you don’t have ACM Digital Library access, you can grab the paper from my Guzdial Papers page here in the blog.

The new challenges compound existing teaching-related challenges for the field. We still need to broaden participation in our field, with the lowest percentage of women majors in all of STEM. The economic rewards of a computing career make it even more important to bridge the digital divide. If there are more students than faculty can teach effectively, they may be inclined to lean on a pessimistic belief that success is dependent on “brilliance” and innate ability where only a subset of students can succeed. If CS faculty feel there is little they can do to change students’ outcomes in their individual classrooms, it will be true. Research shows that more CS faculty hold this mistaken and unproductive view of students than faculty in other STEM disciplines.

Source: Preparing Tomorrow’s Faculty to Address Challenges in Teaching Computer Science | May 2017 | Communications of the ACM

October 2, 2017 at 7:00 am 1 comment

How to be a great (CS) teacher from Amy Ko

Amy Ko from U-W is giving a talk to new faculty about how to be a great CS teacher.  I only quote three of her points below — I encourage you to read the whole list.  Amy’s talk could usefully add some of the points from Cynthia Lee’s list on how to create a more inclusive environment in CS.  CS is far less diverse than any other STEM discipline.  Being a great CS teacher means that you’re aware of that and take steps to improve diversity in CS.

My argument is as follows:

  • Despite widespread belief among CS faculty in a “geek gene”, everyone can learn computer science.
  • If students are failing a CS class, it’s because of one or more of the following: 1) they didn’t have the prior knowledge you expected them to have, 2) they aren’t sufficiently motivated by you or themselves, 3) your class lacks sufficient practice to help them learn what you’re teaching. Corollary: just because they’re passing you’re class doesn’t mean you’re doing a great job teaching: they may already know everything you’re teaching, they may be incredibly motivated, they may be finding other ways to practice you aren’t aware of, or they may be cheating.
  • To prevent failure, one must design deliberate practice, which consists of: 1) sustained motivation, 2) tasks that build on individual’s prior knowledge, 3) immediate personalized feedback on those tasks, and 4) repetition.

Source: How to be a great (CS) teacher – Bits and Behavior – Medium

May 29, 2017 at 7:00 am Leave a comment

Understanding CS Ed Research in The Soul of the Research University

The below-linked article is highly recommended.  It’s an insightful consideration of the different definitions of “University” we have in the US, and how the goals of helping students become educated for middle class jobs and of being a research university are not the same thing.

This article gave me new insight into the challenges of discipline-based education research, like computing education research.  We really are doing research, as one would expect in a research university, e.g., trying to understand what it means for a human to understand computation and how to improve that understanding.  But what we study is a kind of activity that occurs at that other kind of university.  That puts us in a weird place, between the two definitions of the role of a university.  It gives me new insight into the challenges I faced when I was the director of undergraduate studies in the College of Computing and when I was implementing Media Computation.  Education research isn’t just thrown over the wall into implementation.  The same challenges of technology adoption and, necessarily, technology adaption have to occur.

At the “TIME Summit on Higher Education” that the Carnegie Corporation of New York and Time magazine co-sponsored in September 2013 along with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the disconnect between the views of the research university from inside and outside was vividly on display. A procession of distinguished leaders of higher education mainly emphasized the need to protect—in particular, to finance adequately—the university’s research mission. A procession of equally distinguished outsiders, including the U.S. secretary of education, mainly emphasized the need to make higher education more cost-effective for its students and their families, which almost inevitably entails twisting the dial away from research and toward the emphasis on skills instruction that characterizes the mass higher-education model. Time’s own cover story that followed from the conference hardly mentioned research it was mainly about how much economically useful material students are learning, even though the research university was explicitly the main focus of the conference.

via The Soul of the Research University – The Chronicle Review – The Chronicle of Higher Education.

July 20, 2014 at 9:10 am 8 comments

Selective colleges getting super-selective: But a college degree isn’t worth anything

When I read about the burgeoning applications to colleges, I’m reminded of the claim that college degrees aren’t worth anything and that higher education is completely broken.

Stanford offered admission to 2,210 students via electronic notification today, producing – at 5.69 percent – the lowest admit rate in University history.…On Thursday, several peer institutions also reported historically low admit rates. Harvard, Yale, Columbia and Princeton admitted 5.8, 6.72, 6.89 and 7.29 percent of applicants respectively.

via Selective colleges getting super-selective | Gas station without pumps.

April 17, 2013 at 1:53 am 9 comments

Where did CS PhD’s get their undergraduate degrees?

The latest issue of Computing Research News has a report from CRA-E (their Education subcommittee) on where CS PhD’s come from.  Research universities, institutions that stop at Masters degrees, four year colleges, or top liberal arts institutions?  Turns out the answer is that the vast majority of CS PhD’s get their undergraduate degrees from research universities, but the sum of the PhD’s who get their undergraduate degrees from the top 25 liberal arts institutions is greater than any single research institution.  There’s also evidence that the research universities produce better graduate students, using NSF fellowships as the quality metric.  That was quite unexpected — I would have guessed that the four years and the liberal arts institutions would have played a much greater role.

In 2010, 1665 Ph.D.’s were awarded in computer science of which 714 went to domestic students.   Approximately 71% of the domestic Ph.D.’s received their undergraduate degrees from research universities, 15% from master’s institutions, 11% from four-year colleges, and 4% from other colleges.  These proportions have remained essentially unchanged since 2000 with all four types seeing similar increases since 2005.

via Computing Research News – Online – Computing Research Association.

January 22, 2013 at 1:04 am 15 comments

First endowed chair CS Ed professor, Ben Shapiro at Tufts

While Ben Shapiro’s chair says “Engineering Education,” his PhD in Education and CS and the kinds of projects he works on says to me that we can claim him as a CS Ed guy.  Which makes this the first (as far as I know) Endowed Chair for CS Ed.  Ben will be part of CEEO at Tufts — they have a new MAT for teaching engineering that I wrote about earlier, and I visited them last month and wrote about here.  A win for Ben, Tufts, and the CS Ed community!

The James S. McDonnell Family Foundation has donated $3 million to Tufts University in Medford, Mass., to fund an endowed chair at its school of engineering, university officials announced.

The gift will also support the Center for Engineering Education and Outreach (CEEO) to expand research into educational technologies to help children in grades K-12 learn engineering and technology concepts.

R. Ben Shapiro will be the inaugural holder of the McDonnell Family Foundation professorship in engineering education (pending university provost and trustee approval), and he will be a faculty member of CEEO.

via McDonnell Foundation gifts $3 million to Tufts University – St. Louis Business Journal.

January 17, 2013 at 3:00 am Leave a comment

Universities on the Defensive: What is it we do

Ian Bogost’s piece (linked below) on Georgia Tech’s involvement in Coursera is biting and to-the-point.  “The fundamental problem isn’t one of cost containment, it’s one of funding—of understanding why the cost containment solution appeared in the first place. We collectively ‘decided’ not to fund education in America. ”  Why is Georgia Tech doing Coursera?  Why are any of the other schools doing this?  He argues that nobody knows, that everybody is doing this because they are trying to position themselves as a member of the elite, as being in the lead.  It’s a defensive posture.

Are Universities under attack?  De-funding is a form of attack.  Why do we have universities, then? What do Universities exist for?  Why did we collectively decide not to fund education?  Maybe decision makers don’t understand what we do.  And the question at hand: do MOOCs replace what we do?

I’ve been thinking about this, while living at one of the world’s oldest and most influential universities.  Teaching is not all that they do at Oxford, though I do think that they are particularly good at real education and not just imparting knowledge.  The issues of what Universities are for were raised at the C21U launch almost a year ago.  Educating students is only part of what Universities do (and there is some question about whether MOOCs education or simply train).  But when it comes to education, a research university can provide a unique learning experience.

I love teaching at Georgia Tech’s Study Abroad program at Oxford. The location is amazing, but that isn’t the greatest value of the experience for me–and I hope not for the students. I love the opportunity to interact with students intensively (in class, at meals, on the street, and even in the pubs), to spend every day in the classroom, and to grade everything myself and get a sense for how everyone is doing.  All of us GT faculty are here to teach.  There’s a community of scholars. I meet weekly for dinner (and often over breakfast) and conversation with a group of similarly minded GT faculty who really care about teaching and students.

For me, the experience informs my research.  The intensive interaction with a small number of students is my opportunity to try out new ideas (like worked examples with self-explanations and pixels in a spreadsheet) and inform my intuition about whether or not they might work.  It’s the first stage of design-based research: I’m trying to make something work, with small numbers, when I can really see what’s going on.  This is more than teaching for me — it’s an intense, immersive, research-informing experience.

I believe that the students are getting something unique out of this, too.  Excuse me for being immodest here: This is what I’m good at, and what I’m trained for.  This is why I’m a professor.  I’m a good teacher, but I also have decades of experience as an education researcher.  My students know that I’m trying new ideas out with them.  I tell them (in both of my courses) about what I’m trying and why I’m trying it and about my research agenda.  Even those students who are “just” taking a first-year-level intro to computing course are hearing about the research context and how it informs what we’re doing. My colleagues who do not do education research also wrap their courses with their research context.  Every course is infused with the passion of a scholar who talks about what they study and why they think it’s amazing and fascinating.

This is education that a University can offer, uniquely.  My students are learning knowledge and skills and perspectives, in a rich and intense and personal experience.   It doesn’t always work so well, I admit.  I can’t do the kinds of things I do here at Oxford in our enormous courses in Atlanta.  And this kind of education isn’t for everybody.  Turadg told us that we need a variety of learning systems for a variety of needs.  I definitely have students who are going through the paces and aren’t interested in taking advantage of the whole experience.

I’m damn sure that there is no MOOC that can replace what is going on in my classrooms this summer.  Now, society can decide that what I’m offering isn’t worthwhile, or is too expensive, or can be offered to too few students, or may even not as work as well as I hope.  Maybe that’s the real danger of MOOCs — it offers something for free (to the students) that seems as good as what a good University education could be, or as good an education as members of our society need.

Maybe what we in Universities ought to do is show people more often what it is that we do and explain why.  We need to be able to show people why what we’re offering in a University is better than a MOOC and is valuable to the greater society.

Institutions like mine are afraid of the present and the future yet drunk on the dream of being “elite” and willing to do anything to be seen in the right crowd making the hip choices. The provostial email also notes, “It also is significant that Georgia Tech is a founding member of this group.” Group membership is a key obsession of university administration, and it’s why they take systems lik the US News rankings so seriously. Of course, all such structures are partly fictions we invent to structure our lives and society. The Ivy League isn’t a natural law or a God-given lineage.

In this respect, Coursera’s clearly got the upper hand among institutions that fancy themselves elite: once they get a critical mass on board, the rest don’t want to appear left behind. Given the recent drama at the University of Virginia, whose president was fired partly for failing to blindly adopt online learning only to be re-hired after a PR-nightmare only weeks before UVA announced their participation in Coursera anyway, you can see how Presidents and Provosts across the land might be ready to sign on for defensive reasons alone.

via Ian Bogost – MOOCs are Marketing.

July 25, 2012 at 3:29 am 19 comments

The changes the University of Virginia must make: Support for Board of Visitors

Interesting op-ed in The Washington Postsupporting the Board of Visitors.  It’s useful to read and get a broader perspective on the debate on President Sullivan’s ouster.  The argument seems to be that Universities must change, and the trustees have the responsibility to force that change.  Forcing a resignation in closed meetings is not a good first step towards these changes.  We need imaginative problem-solving to figure a path from where we’re at today in US Universities.

Now, the Board of Visitors has now reversed itself and reinstated Sullivan.  Reportedly, Rector Dragas and President Sullivan met to resolve their differences.  I’d like to hear what decisions they arrived at (or, the decision was simply forced by higher authorities).  The tension between their perspectives is one felt throughout higher education, and it would be useful to others to hear a plan for moving forward.

Given the university’s failure to address urgent issues such as greater faculty teaching loads, new technologies, using buildings more effectively and eliminating unproductive or outdated courses, it’s no wonder that a board concerned with spiraling costs could not continue working with a president who approached business as usual, hoping for change later.

If institutions want to remain strong, their trustees must demand innovative and imaginative changes and be aware of the urgency of their task. If a university president is not moving in the same direction, then difficult decisions must be made and trustees are going to have to bear the inevitable pushback. This is not the first time that trustees have come under fire for trying to do their job: Last fall, trustees at the University of Texas and Texas A&M found themselves under attack when they started to examine faculty teaching loads and the balance of research and teaching.

via The changes the University of Virginia must make – The Washington Post.

June 28, 2012 at 2:12 am 2 comments

UFlorida maintains CISE research, but still merges departments

Sounds like the Dean gets her merger of CISE into ECE, but CISE gets to keep research.  Miami Herald ran a story on the UFlorida CISE department, and the comments were really insightful.  I see more clearly what the voters of Florida want, and why they elect officials who make these kinds of budgetary decisions.

As many of you know, the proposal has been met with overwhelming negative response, much of which I believe has been based on misunderstanding. Nonetheless, it is clear that the University of Florida must figure out a way to make it through these financially difficult times in a productive manner. I am optimistic we can do that.

This week, the chairmen of the departments of Computer and Information Science and Engineering and Electrical and Computer Engineering have come forward together with a framework of a new proposal that would help meet the college’s budget target. It also would address issues raised during recent discussions, namely, clarify and enhance degree offerings while preserving the research mission in both computer science and computer engineering, achieve efficiency in teaching and bring faculty workloads in line with other departments of the college.

“We are currently working on a plan for a joint organization of these two departments into a larger unit. I feel strongly that this is the best opportunity for the two departments moving forward,” said Gerhard Ritter, interim chair of CISE.

via University of Florida News – UF president issues statement to university community regarding budget.

April 26, 2012 at 10:21 am 3 comments

An explanation for U. Florida’s CISE actions: A move towards Liberal Arts

Maybe this is just rationalization, but it’s particularly interesting from a “computer science as a liberal art” perspective.  The Dean of Engineering at U. Florida is described below as saying that these changes would encourage more liberal arts students to study computer science which is what local employers want.  Most of the explanations I’ve read for the change were more about strengthening computer engineering and tying CS and EE together more strongly.

Abernathy said she expects the changes actually would boost the computer science program’s enrollment. She said she has talked with MindTree about its employment needs and said the changes would help achieve its goal of hiring liberal arts students also studying computer science.

via Engineering College chairman blasts cuts as wrong time, wrong place | Gainesville.com.

April 24, 2012 at 9:42 am 1 comment

University of Florida Eliminates Computer Science Department, Increases Athletic Budgets. Hmm. – Forbes

This new article on the ongoing U. Florida debacle in Forbes is shocking.  The athletic department is not getting cut — it’s getting a raise, and the raise alone is larger than the cost for the CISE department!  Meanwhile, Florida has just created a new STEM-oriented university.  I really would like to hear what argument the administration makes for these decisions.  An article this morning in the Gainesville Sun suggests that the local residents don’t understand it, either.

Meanwhile, the athletic budget for the current year is $99 million, an increase of more than $2 million from last year.  The increase alone would more than offset the savings supposedly gained by cutting computer science.

Now, I’m not saying that UF has chosen football over science.  (Imagine the outcry, though, if UF cut a major sport instead of a major science department.) Actually, the real villains here are the Florida state legislators, who have cut the budget for their flagship university by 30% over the past 6 years.

Meanwhile, just two days ago, Florida governor Rick Scott approved the creation of a brand-new public university, Florida Polytechnic University, to be located near the city of Tampa.

via University of Florida Eliminates Computer Science Department, Increases Athletic Budgets. Hmm. – Forbes.

April 23, 2012 at 9:03 am 3 comments

University of Florida to dismantle CISE department

Our Dean at the Georgia Tech College of Computing has sent this to all of the faculty, urging us to sign the petition. I don’t know anything about the politics of CISE and ECE at Florida, but this is a significant development in the history of computing education and the trend toward shutting down CS departments.

A message from Prof. Sartaj Sahni.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dear Colleague,
The CISE (Computer and Information Science Department) at the University of Florida needs your help in its struggle to survive . In a nutshell, our Dean has decided to use the pretext of a budget cut to dismantle the department, something (actually, uniting CISE and ECE) she has been trying to do for the past 3 years but was unable to do because she couldn’t get the required votes. Now, she claims that with budget cuts, she doesn’t need anyone’s support.Given this history, it should be clear that the dismantling  is purely retribution for not  voting in favor of her earlier plan to unite ECE and CISE. Please see the information below for more details.

Please help by signing the petition (http://saveufcise.wordpress.com/) and in any other way possible (e.g., email the UF presidentpresident@ufl.edu pointing out the value/need for CS grads especially PhDs). Please inform your friends and ask them to do the same and spread the word. Keep in mind that if this dismantling is successful here, it could be tried by other Deans at other universities. Your department could be next!

Thanks.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Current Situation:
The Dean of the College of Engineering, Dr. Cammy Abernathy fired three staff members today, jumpstarting a plan to remove all research and graduate programs from Computer Information Science and Engineering Department (CISE).
If the University is targeting a department as profitable as CISE, with such high employment prospects (Bureau of Labor Statistics<http://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/software-developers.htm#tab-6>), which attracts great economic growth to the Gainesville area (http://bit.ly/Ii1fjF), who knows which department will be next.
The GAU believes these actions establish a dangerous precedent of radical department cuts that impacts all Graduate Students, Faculty, and Staff.
Plan of Action:
1.      Today, April 12th at 11:30AM: Join the protest at the Reitz Union Colonnade http://www.facebook.com/events/423610120998036/
2.      Today, April 12th at 2:00PM: Come to the Faculty Senate Meeting at McKnight Brain Institute Auditorium
3.      Sign this petition http://saveufcise.wordpress.com/
4.      Follow us on twitter: @SaveUFCISE

Background:
The Dean of the College of Engineering, Dr. Cammy Abernathy, announced today that she will eliminate all research, graduate programs, and TAs from the Computer and Information Science Department (CISE).  Amazingly, she is targeting a department that brings in 17% of the College of Engineering’s revenue at only 10% of the College’s cost.
CISE Teaching Assistantships will be eliminated.  The CISE department will continue as a teaching-only department without teaching assistants. All CISE Graduate Assistants, who expected to receive a software degree, will be forced to move to a computer hardware department (Electrical and Computer Engineering Department, ECE).  Some CISE professors, handpicked by the Dean, will be moved to one of three unrelated departments (BME, ISE, ECE).  This will drastically affect Graduate Assistants’ financial status and career prospects.
The Nuclear Engineering Department was eliminated last year with similar tactics.
The University of Florida has other cuts on the table:  http://bit.ly/HtruDH

April 13, 2012 at 9:02 am 8 comments

How Not to Require Computer Science for All Students – The Chronicle of Higher Education

Robert Talbert has blogged twice recently in the theme of requiring computer science for all students in The Chronicle‘s blog.  His points, and the discussion in response, are fascinating, since they reflect the perspectives of a wide audience.  There are lots of calls in the comments for just teaching computing applications, not programming, and it’s useful to read those perspectives.

The reason I bring this up is that I’m hearing some say, in response to the articles about the CS requirement, that we should require a course in office applications and basic digital literacy for those who come in with lesser technological skill, and that can be their CS course. I think that’s looking at the problem from the wrong end. It seems that we might want a global CS requirement because in this era, the quantity and quality of digital skills that we should expect from students has changed. Office suite proficiency is necessary but no longer sufficient: We want students to be able to program (where “programming” is broadly defined), to articulate how computers and the internet work, and so on. The question ought to be, where do we want students to end up with respect to CS, not where are they now. If we want all students to program — which I think is the true gist of the push to require CS — then let’s aim high, set the goal, and help students get there. (Which involves asking “where are they now”, I know.) But let’s not say that students with low tech proficiencies can’t get there or shouldn’t be expected to get there.

via How Not to Require Computer Science for All Students – Casting Out Nines – The Chronicle of Higher Education.

April 10, 2012 at 9:07 am 1 comment


Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 9,052 other followers

Feeds

Recent Posts

Blog Stats

  • 2,031,022 hits
October 2022
M T W T F S S
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31  

CS Teaching Tips