1. We briefly discussed the results of the accreditation evaluation by ABET and CSAB of our CSE program. As announced earlier, the program has been accredited for the full six year term. There were a couple of concerns expressed by CSAB. The first has to do with ensuring that sufficient number of sections of the required and elective courses are offered to allow students to be able to enroll in them and to finish the program in a timely manner. The second has to do with ensuring that oral communication skills are developed adequately (before being applied in courses like 601).
The first concern is obviously a continuing one and has to do with the ever present problem of faculty size. For the second concern, we have to make sure that the newly developed Eng 181, 182 courses (required of all CSE majors) do what they have said they will with respect to developing oral communication skills.
2. We took a quick look at the enrollment numbers. Recall that we instituted a 2.8 (up from 2.4) gpa requirement for admission to the CIS and CSE majors starting Summer '99, and that this went up further to 3.0 starting this Summer. While the four-quarter running totals of students admitted to the major has definitely dropped from a high of 272 in Au '99 to 234 in Au '00, it is still way too high. (Our target number, assuming a tenure-track faculty size of 30, is 180.)
But we have reached the point in the gpa requirement going beyond which is going to require some extraordinary work. The problem is that the College of Engineering has a policy (?) that says that any student with a 3.0 or above may major any program he or she chooses to major in. Obviously this will have to be repealed or modified before we can raise our gpa requirement any further. This will be a continuing topic for future meetings.
3. We briefly discussed plans for the year. One main task is already listed above: enrollment management. A second task is to have faculty coordinators for various areas look at the list of required and recommended courses for their respective areas and recommend whatever changes are needed. Related to this but at a somewhat higher level, faculty has to look at the CSE program objectives/ outcomes and either reaffirm them or make whatever changes are needed. It would also make sense to have faculty approve a similar set of objectives for the CIS program (so that it follows the requirements of CSAB accreditation even if we don't actually intend to have it evaluated for accreditation). Finally, we have to continue the other regular activities such as analyzing the results of our various surveys, etc. as required by ABET.
4. Jacob mentioned that Robert Reed of IBM (Triangle Park) will be on campus next week as part of their on-campus recruitment effort. He would like to set up stronger relations between IBM and the department. To this end he would like to meet with one or more of our faculty to get a good feel for the program, see if there are things IBM could do for us etc.; he is already scheduled to meet with Stu.
The meeting adjourned at 11:30 am.
Next meeting: TBA.
1. Faculty advisors: It had been our policy in the past to not assign students as advisees to faculty who have just joined the department; this was because such faculty may not have a thorough understanding of our undergraduate programs and may not be able to advise students effectively. During the last couple of years, this policy does not seem to have been followed effectively. After some discussion, it was decided that the policy still made sense and that Peg and the Undergrad advising office will ensure that students are not assigned to faculty during their first year in the department.
A related question came up: Should full-time Lecturers and Senior Lecturers be allowed to/required to advise students? The general consensus was that they should not be required to do so but those who were interested in advising students should be allowed to do so, so long as they are qualified (for e.g., hold a Ph.D.~in Computer Science or are otherwise qualified).
2. Report on last year's activities: The Outcomes Assessment Committee of the College has requested each program to prepare an annual report on the previous year's activities with a view toward accumulating the documented evidence that the ABET EC2000 criteria calls for to demonstrate continued improvement in the program, etc. Neelam has prepared such a report as well as a two page summary for the College; the report and summary were approved with suggestions for some changes (to further highlight the department's need for serious additional resources, given the demand for the majors). The report and the summary are available at http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/~neelam/abet
3. Objectives and outcomes: The current set of objectives and outcomes for the CSE program was approved about three years ago. It is now time (according to EC2000 guidelines) to review them, make any needed changes, and re-approve them.
Here are some points that were noted during the discussion: According to the feedback received from our (exit, alumni, and supervisor) surveys, our current objectives and outcomes are generally reasonable. Some restructuring of the objectives and outcomes statement would make sense, for example moving the outcomes concerning team-working skills to the objective having to do with preparing graduates for employment or perhaps the one that has to do with human and social issues. There was also some discussion of whether a separate objective concerning providing graduates with an understanding of social issues independently of their role in society as engineers/computing professionals, should be introduced. (The feedback from our surveys would probably not suggest the addition of such an objective; this objective, in its current form, is consistently ranked last in its "importance" in all our surveys.) Yet another suggestion was to modify the objective that has to do with preparing graduates for employment so that it refers to both immediate employment after graduation as well as preparation for their long-term careers (one of the outcomes corresponding to the long-term career should probably be something about "lifelong learning").
This item will be further discussed before a revised version of the objectives and outcomes statement is prepared.
The meeting adjourned at 11:30 am.
Next meeting: TBA.
1. Objectives and outcomes: We continued the discussion of the
CSE objectives and outcomes statement. There was general
agreement on the proposed version but some wording changes were
suggested. A new version (including most of the suggested changes) is
available at:
http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/~neelam/ugsc/programs/propcseobj.html.
Faculty and students are invited to review this version and send any
comments or suggestions to Neelam. This draft is
expected to be presented to the department's Industrial Advisory Board
for its comments; a final version will then be prepared for discussion
and (hopefully,) approval by faculty.
2. CIS 640 and 642: With the retirement of Ray Moore, there is no one on the faculty with primary interest in numerical methods. This, combined with the general severe shortage of faculty, means that these courses will not be offered as frequently as they have been in the past. The two courses are required for the Scientific Computing option so the question was what, if anything, we should do about the courses and/or the option.
After a brief discussion we concluded that long-term decisions on this (and other similar) question(s) should be postponed until after we have had a reaction from the university to our request for additional resources. For now, we will try to discourage students from choosing this option. For students who are already in the option, we will identify suitable course substitutions if necessary to allow them to graduate on time; possible substitutions are CIS621 for CIS640, and Math571, 572 for CIS642, Math568 (Math568 is also required for this option).
3. CIS489: Students who are doing an internship/co-op can get credit for CIS489 for upto two hours of elective credit (but these credits cannot be used as tech electives). The course is graded S/U. In order to get an S in the course, the student is required to submit a six or seven page report on their internship/co-op experience; the report is required to follow specified guidelines. Currently, someone in the ASC Career Services Office (is the only one who) reads the reports submitted by our (both CIS and CSE) students. It would make sense for someone in the department to do this because these reports can give us valuable insights into industry-thinking and ideas on improving our program.
One possibility would be to distribute the load of reading the reports among a number of faculty. But since the number of reports in question is usually only one or two per quarter, we decided, after a short discussion that the UGSC Chair should do this. The students will be asked to submit their reports to the (CIS) Advising Office which will then pass them on to the UGSC Chair who will read them and inform the Advising Office whether or not the student should receive an S in the course.
The meeting adjourned at 11:30 am.
Next meeting: TBA.
1. Objectives and outcomes: Neelam reported that the proposed revised
version of the CSE objectives and outcomes was presented to the
Industrial Advisory Board for its comments at its meeting on October
28. Neelam reported that the comments of the board members about the
proposed revisions were generally satisfactory. The current version is
available at:
http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/~neelam/ugsc/programs/propcseobj.html.
Faculty and students are invited to review this version and send any comments or suggestions to Neelam. A final version will be prepared for discussion and (hopefully,) approval by faculty at the next regular faculty meeting.
2. Faculty advisors for different option areas: The distribution of students interested in the different option areas (these being software systems, hardware/software, information systems, scientific computing, advanced studies, and individualized) has been changing somewhat over the last few years. As a result, we have too many faculty advisors for some areas and not enough for others. So we will be reassigning faculty advising areas in the near future. This means that some faculty may have to advise in areas that don't exactly coincide with their research interests; we will try to minimize these, but some mismatches seem unavoidable if the advising load is to be distributed somewhat evenly among the faculty. Neelam will contact individual faculty about this in the next month or two.
One other problem having to do with advisors came up during the discussion. With our ever-increasing gpa requirement for admission to the CIS/CSE majors, a lot of our students are honors students. Until now, one faculty advisor (currently, Bruce) has served as advisor for all these students. This approach doesn't make much sense if half of our students are honors students. In addition, the designated honors advisor also has to field questions from non-CIS/CSE honors students who are interested in taking some CIS courses or in minoring in CIS etc., and this load too has been going up in the last few years. This problem too needs to be addressed.
3. Reviewing courses in option areas: Faculty advisors for each option area will be asked to review the appropriateness of the courses currently included (either as required or recommend electives) in their respective option areas and propose any needed changes. (This is not because any specific problems have been noticed; it just makes sense to review these lists about once every two or three years to make sure that the lists are current in view of possible changes in the area as well as possible changes in our course offerings.)
4. Proposal for CIS minor at the Mansfield OSU Campus: Stu received an email message from Frank Miller, System Engineer at the Mansfield Campus, enquiring about the possibility of their offering the programming and algorithms track minor at that campus; the CIS courses in this track are 221, 222, 321, 360, 541, and 570 (to be replaced by 670?); 541 and 570 are possible electives for the minor, and the others are required as part of the minor.
A number of issues were raised about this proposal. First was the question of ensuring that the courses that might be taught at Mansfield are consistent with those we teach. Clearly this would require them to hire qualified faculty; Miller's message does indicate that they intend to try to do this; it is worth noting that any regular faculty they hire would in fact be members of our department. Second, it is not clear that it would be advisable for them to jump in quite so deep, quite so quickly. It was suggested that it might make more sense to start out by offering just CIS 202, or possibly CIS 202, 221, 222 (the latter if appropriate means can be developed to ensure that the 221 and 222 follow the same approach and details as the ones we teach). Alternately, they might want to try to offer CIS 201 or perhaps CIS 201, 214, and 314, these being the first three courses in the IS minor. Such an approach would allow these students to start at the Mansfield campus and then transfer to the main campus to finish their programs; and in the case of CIS 202, 221, 222, these students might even be (pre-)majors rather than just minors. But of course all of this will require close coordination with faculty here (especially in the case of CIS 221, 222 given the unique nature of our Software Spine sequence).
The committee felt, given these considerations, that it would be appropriate for Stu to talk to John Riedl, Dean of the Mansfield campus to discuss these issues and to explore possiblities.
The meeting adjourned at 11:30 am.
Next meeting: TBA.
1. Transfer students: Each year there is a small, but not negligible, number of students who transfer to OSU with the intention of majoring in CIS/CSE. Some of these students may come to OSU with transfer credit for several CIS courses (perhaps as much as 20 hours or more). For purposes of this discussion, it is convenient to classify these students into three categories:
There are two problems that we were concerned with. First, before these students can be accepted to the CIS/CSE major, they must complete at least 25 hours of courses at OSU with a minimum gpa in these courses of 3.0 (current requirement); many of these students do not seem to know about this requirement until they have been in OSU for some time. Second, it seems possible that some of these students may graduate with an OSU degree, having taken relatively few of our (CIS) courses should they happen to come in with relatively large number of transfer credits for CIS courses. This seems undesirable. Both problems are especially serious for category III students, and somewhat less so for category II students. This is because these students have invested time into CS and if they discover they cannot major in CIS/CSE after transferring to OSU and spending sometime here, that really sets them back; they are also the ones (especially category III students) that may graduate having taken relatively few of our (CIS) courses.
After considerable discussion, we decided on the following actions: First, we will request the Admissions office to send transfer students who express an interest in CIS/CSE, a letter explaining the gpa requirement for acceptance into the CIS/CSE major, stress that the majority of OSU students who wish to major in CIS/CSE do not meet this requirement and are not accepted into the major, and stress that the requirement will apply also to them; this information will also be added to our web site that describes our undergrad programs. Second, we will try to impose a "residency requirement" that the number of hours of CIS courses (as well as appropriate other courses such as Math 568) that any CIS/CSE major takes before graduation must exceed 50% of the minimum number of hours required in CIS Core, plus the number of hours in the option chosen by the student, plus the number of hours for courses like Math 366, etc. It was not clear how easy it would be to impose such a requirement although there seems to be some precedent for it. If we are able to impose it, this requirement will ensure that all our grads, including transfer students, will have taken a reasonable number of our courses.
2. CIS 541: The only faculty member that we had (Ray Moore) whose primary interest was in numerical methods, has retired. This, and more importantly, the severe lack of faculty, makes offering enough sections of 541 a difficult problem. This is also a problem for courses like CIS 640 and 642, but the 541 issue is more serious since this course is required for all our majors.
Possible solutions to the problem range from considering eliminating 541 from the list of required courses, to finding substitute courses offered by other departments, to doing nothing in the hope that our faculty size will increase to reasonable numbers in the next year or two so that we have enough faculty to teach all courses. Note that we currently do have a number of faculty who are able and willing to teach 541, so we don't need to specifically hire someone whose area of interest is numerical analysis in order to teach the course; although it was also noted that the topic, playing as central a role as it does in areas like scientific computing and computer graphics, would also not be an inappropriate area for our department to have some expertise in, given our intention to be a major, large-size, department.
The general consensus was that the option of eliminating the course from the list of required courses was an extreme one, again given the central role that the topics it covers play in important computing applications, and that it doesn't make sense to consider this option at least for now. There was a brief discussion about substitute courses offered by other departments but none were identified that would seem to focus on what we would consider as being the essential topics, these being important algorithms for solving various problems in numerical computation, a good understanding of rounding errors that occur in using these algorithms, etc. A comment was also made that in the last few years, with Moore being the main person teaching and coordinating the course, 541 had become too focused on one particular topic, interval analysis (which was Moore's specialty area), with the result that some of the other topics were being somewhat short-changed; this would be a good opportunity to address that problem as well.
In summary, the conclusion was that no particular changes such as elimination of 541 from the list of required courses should be considered for now. If it becomes clear down the road that our faculty size is not going to increase substantially, we may well have to consider this, along with other possible "solutions" to the problem of resource shortage.
The meeting adjourned at 11:30 am.
Next meeting: TBA.
1. GPA requirement for admission to the majors:
This was our annual
discussion on what the gpa requirement for admission to the (CIS and
CSE) major should be. It was increased (from 2.0) to 2.4 effective
Summer '98, to 2.8 effective Summer '99, and to 3.0 effective
Summer 2000. The hope was that this would bring down the number
of students admitted to the majors over a four quarter period to
something like 190. In fact, this has not happened. Based on the
numbers for the last two quarters, it looks like the four-quarter
total (for Summer 2000 - Spring 2001) of the number of admits to the
majors will be around 230.
The number of admits to the majors over a four quarter period that we should aim for, given our current faculty size, is 185; this number is arrived at on the basis of a university-approved formula. Given the current demand for the majors, our calculations show that achieving this target would require us to raise the gpa for admission to the major to 3.2 and it was proposed that we do so.
In the discussion that followed, the main issues that were discussed were the question of the (un-)fairness of closing out otherwise-qualified students from majoring in these popular areas after admitting them to OSU, indeed after recruiting them to come to OSU; and the possibility of using other criteria than overall gpa for controlling admission to the majors. With respect to the fairness question, the point to note is that we really don't have any other alternative, given our faculty size. If we were to admit all or most of the qualified students interested in majoring in CIS and CSE, the result would be that they will be repeatedly closed out of courses and will not be able to graduate in anything like a timely manner. With respect to the question of using a different criterion (such as performance in CIS-related courses, or some combination of gpa and performance in CIS-related courses), it was noted that any such change would have to be approved by both the Engineering College and ASC, as well as the University Council on Academic Affairs. If our past experience is any indication, such approval is likely to, at best, be a long drawn out and extremely demanding process; and at worst, it may result in our current procedure also being thrown out. It was also stressed that the goal of the enrollment management scheme is strictly that -- limiting enrollment to a size that somewhat matches our faculty resources. It is not a back-door approach to improving quality of the program by admitting only the highest-gpa students; as soon as our faculty strength goes up and/or the demand for the majors goes down, we will correspondingly adjust the gpa requirement downward.
One other point was noted. Currently, the College of Engineering has a statement/rule to the effect that any (engineering) student with a gpa of 3.0 or above will be admitted into their choice of major. Our raising the gpa requirement for admission to 3.2 will clearly violate this. The college is in the process of removing this rule; for now we will proceed under the assumption that the rule will indeed be removed and that a gpa requirement of 3.2 for admission to CSE and CIS will not violate any college or university policies.
After considerable discussion, the committee approved the proposal. The one dissenting vote was that of Jacob (our student rep) who, while recognizing the need for ensuring that the number of majors is not seriously out of proportion with the size of the faculty, was very disturbed by the unfairness issue described above.
The proposal will be presented to the faculty at next meeting for its approval. Assuming the faculty does grant its approval, the new requirement will go into effect starting Summer 2001.
The meeting adjourned at 3:30 pm.
Next meeting: TBA.
1. GPA requirement for admission to the majors and related issues:
During our meeting of January 16 we proposed, given the continuing
increase in the demand for our majors with no corresponding increase
in the size of our tenure-track faculty, to increase the GPA required
for admission to the CIS and CSE majors to 3.2;
see the
minutes of that meeting for details. The proposal
will be discussed by faculty at its regular meeting on February 5; if
faculty approves the proposal, it will go into effect starting Summer
2001.
The purpose of today's meeting was to see if there was anything we, as
the Undergraduate Studies Committee, charged with (among other things)
addressing concerns of our undergraduate students, can do anything
to help
improve the resource situation so that we do not have to continuously
increase the gpa requirement year after year. For example, there has
been a flurry of messages recently on cis.opinion with several students
expressing shock and outrage that the CIS department would turn away
so many otherwise qualified students from majoring in the subject that
they came to OSU for.
A number of points were noted:
It was also suggested that even if we are again unable to get the Admissions Office to send out a letter to prospective freshman interested in CIS/CSE about the high likelihood of their being closed out of the majors, it would be useful create a web page (easily reachable from the department's home page) that explains the situation (and as well provides other information that prospective students might be interested in). Indeed, an easily reached page that provides information of interest to prospective students (and parents) would seem to be a good idea independent of the question of informing these students about the current enrollment problems. We will explore this further.
The meeting adjourned at 3:18 pm.
Next meeting: TBA.
1. GPA requirement for admission to the majors and related issues:
At its meeting on February 12, the CIS faculty approved the proposed
increase
of the GPA requirement for admission to the CIS and CSE majors to 3.2;
this will be effective starting with students who apply during Summer
quarter 2001, for admission to the major in the Fall quarter. The
faculty adopted the following resolution:
Despite an unprecedented increase in student interest in the CIS and CSE majors and an equally strong increase in the demand for computing graduates in the market, the Computer and Information Science Department's resources, especially those needed to expand its upper level teaching capacities, have remained stagnant.We will be mailing out letters to all our pre-majors informing them of this impending change. One other point was noted: Currently, the College of Engineering's Book 9 reads in part ``Students who have completed the pre-major courses and have a CPHR of 3.0 or above are assured of acceptance into the major of their choice.'' The College Committee on Academic Affairs (CCAA) has approved a proposal to have this policy rescinded so that each program can set the GPA requirement based on its resources and the demand for its majors. The proposal still has to be approved by the University Council on Academic Affairs (CAA) before it is officially rescinded; CAA is expected to approve it in the near future.The Department therefore regretfully raises its 2001/2002 CPHR requirement for admission to major from 3.0 to 3.2, even though that CPHR threshold will prevent an estimated 360 (67%) of interested and otherwise qualified Ohio State undergraduates from majoring in CIS or CSE.
2. The rest of the meeting was devoted to talking about various ideas for improving the undergrad programs. Some of the items that were mentioned were:
The meeting adjourned at 3:30 pm.
Next meeting: TBA.
1. Report on status of the change in the gpa requirement for admission to the CIS/CSE majors: Last quarter the CIS faculty voted (see Feb. 13 minutes) to increase the cphr requirement for admission to the CIS/CSE majors to 3.2 (from the current 3.0), given the continued mismatch between our faculty strength and the number of students interested in the majors. But this cannot go into effect until the existing College of Engineering ceiling of 3.0 cphr for admission to any major in the college is lifted. That requires approval of the University Council on Academic Affairs. CAA was supposed to discuss it in their meeting of April 4 but we have not yet heard anything about the results of that discussion.
At the end of Winter quarter, current pre-majors were informed, both
electronically and by hard-copy letter, of the pending increase in the
cphr requirement. When the CAA approval comes through, pre-majors will
be notified.
2. There was also a discussion of the University's (and the Department's)
responsibility to inform prospective freshmen of the high cphr
requirement for admission to the CIS/CSE majors, and of the fact that
currently about 60% of the CIS/CSE pre-majors are not in fact admitted
to the majors. And that, if the proposed 3.2 cphr requirement goes
into effect, about 67% of the pre-majors will not be admitted to the
majors. If these facts are brought to the attention of prospective
freshmen in a timely manner (i.e., within a week or two from now), by
means of a letter focusing on these points, that will give them the
opportunity to consider their options now, instead of joining OSU with
the expectation of majoring in CIS/CSE and then being closed out of
the major of their choice. It is possible that the university
administration will find the prospect of such a letter somewhat
embarassing, but there was strong feeling in the committee that it is
our professional and ethical responsibility to make sure that
students interested in CIS/CSE do not join OSU without being aware of
the requirements and the possibility, even high likelihood, of their
being closed out of these majors.
A formal motion to have the university, or failing
which, either the department chair or the (UGSC) committee chair,
send such a letter to all prospective freshmen who have expressed an
interest in majoring in CIS/CSE, was made. The motion passed
unanimously.
3. Status of the "new core" for CSE: Doug reported that CAA has not yet
approved the new engineering core. There were apparently some
questions about the Mechanical Eng. portion of the proposal. Doug said
that, according to Bob Gustafson, the college still expects (hopes?)
that CAA will approve it to go into effect starting Autumn '01.
4. Plans for Spring quarter: The two main items UGSC plans to work on this quarter are the annual evaluation of the CSE program (based on the results of exit surveys, alumni surveys, supervisor surveys, and the new recruiter surveys); and going through the various tech electives options to see if any changes are needed in the required and recommended courses included in each option. This will, of course require the help of individual option coordinators; Neelam will talk to them individually.
The meeting adjourned at 9:30 am.
Next meeting: TBA.
There were three items on the agenda but we spent the entire hour on the first item; the other two items will be taken up at future meetings.
1. Notifying prospective freshmen of GPA requirements for admission to the CIS/CSE majors: At our last meeting (see Apr. 5 minutes), we talked about writing to prospective freshmen interested in majoring in CIS and CSE, about the GPA requirement for admission to these majors and the fact that each year a large number of pre-majors are denied admission to these majors. The main reason for sending such a letter was that we felt it was our professional, ethical obligation to do so.
Neelam presented a draft of the letter (based on input from various committee members, including Bill Ogden, Peg Steele, and Jacob Yackenovich). The draft was approved, with some minor changes. A copy of the approved draft appears at the end of these minutes.
The rest of the discussion focussed on how to get the letter out to the prospective freshmen in a timely manner. Since prospective freshmen are required to pay their acceptance fees to the university by May 1st, it seemed that we have already missed the goal of timeliness. Our conclusion was that the letter should go out by middle of next week (say, no later than April 25, and sooner if at all possible). The next question was how to get the names and addresses of the prospective freshmen. It was decided that Neelam should work with the university Admissions Office (in particular with Dr. Mabel Freeman) to get these names and addresses.
The committee also felt that it would be useful for the full faculty to be aware of our concerns about informing prospective freshmen of the GPA requirement, and our plans for sending out this letter. So this will be an agenda item for the next faculty meeting.
Draft of proposed letter to be sent to prospective freshmen
interested in CIS/CSE majors:
Dear Prospective Computing Major:
I understand from our Office of Admissions that you have been admitted to the Ohio State Univeristy and that you are interested in majoring either in Computer Science & Engineering (CSE) or in Computer & Information Science (CIS). As a computing professional, I am pleased to see you are interested in exploring the many challenges and opportunities in the field. At the same time, I feel duty bound to warn you that because of the surging demand for bachelor's degrees in computing and the shortage of computing faculty here, we may be unable to accommodate your educational needs.
Over the past four years, the number of students seeking computing degrees has risen dramatically while the size of our faculty has remained more or less fixed. Hence, in order to ensure that the number of students admitted to the CSE/CIS majors remains somewhat proportional to our faculty size, we have been forced to raise the grade point average necessary for admission to the Computer Science and Engineering (CSE) major and the Computer and Information Science (CIS) major programs in our department from 2.0 (the normal C average required of all students) incrementally to 3.0 (a B average) for this year and is expected to further go up to 3.2 for the next academic year, starting Autumn '01. As a result, approximately two thirds of current Ohio State students who are interested in the CSE/CIS majors will not have the necessary grade point average to enter these majors. Consequently, I believe this is a matter you should consider very carefully as you decide upon your future course of action.
If you have questions about the details of our degree programs in computing or about the course requirements for admission into these degree programs please see our web page at www.cis.ohio-state.edu, or contact our undergraduate advisor (phone: 614-292-1900; US mail: CIS Undergraduate Advisor, 2015 Neil Ave., Columbus, OH 43210; email: undergrad@cis.ohio-state.edu).
Sincerely,
Neelam Soundarajan
Undergraduate Studies Chairperson
The meeting adjourned at 9:30 am.
Next meeting: TBA.
1. Report on status of notifying prospective freshmen of the GPA requirement for admission to the CIS/CSE majors: Neelam reported that the letter (see Apr. 19 minutes) that was intended to warn prospective freshmen of our current enrollment situation and the high gpa requirement for admission to the CIS/CSE majors, was not sent out. The reason for this was that the Admissions Office was strongly opposed to sending out such a letter; Dr. Freeman of Admissions argued that such a letter ``... will confuse them more than satisfactorily inform them as to their options at Ohio State ...''. The Admissions Office did not provide us the names and addresses of the prospective freshmen, so we were unable send out the letters.
2. Report on status of increasing, to 3.2, the GPA requirement for admission to the CIS/CSE majors effective Au '01: Neelam reported that so far the university Council on Academic Affairs (CAA) has not acted on our request to lift the 3.0 cap that currently exists in the College of Engineering on the gpa that may be required of pre-majors for admission to any engineering major. Associate Dean Bob Gustafson of the college had made a presentation to CAA on this topic at its meeting of April 4, but there has been no word of any action since then.
The rest of the meeting was devoted to a continued discussion of our responsbility to provide relevant information to students in a timely manner, especially when the information in question can have a major impact on their (proposed) program of study. Committee members were very disturbed by the apparent failure of the central administration to recognize and act on (or even let us act on) this important responsibility.
The committee was also very concerned about the delay in making a decision about the proposed lifting of the 3.0 cap on the gpa for admission to CSE. Independent of what the decision is, we need to inform students as soon as possible. If the cap is not lifted and the gpa for admission to CIS/CSE remains at 3.0, we need to inform all students, including majors, that the gpa requirement for entry to CIS/CSE will remain at 3.0 but, as a result, they can expect closeouts even in required courses. If the cap is lifted and the gpa requirement goes to 3.2, we need to inform all pre-majors, including the incoming freshmen, who will be affected. And the task of informing these students cannot be indefinitely postponed. Neelam will try to contact the appropriate people on the Council to see if there is anything we can do to speed up the decision.
The following motion was made:
No later than May 25th, all students who will be pre-majors in CIS or CSE during Autumn 2001 will be notified by hard-copy letters, of the gpa required for admission to CIS/CSE. If the gpa required remains at 3.0, these students, as well as all majors, will be notified also of the possibility of their being closed out of CIS classes.After some further discussion, the motion was adopted unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 9:30 am.
Next meeting: TBA.
1. Report on status of increasing, to 3.2, the GPA requirement for admission to the CIS/CSE majors effective Au '01: Neelam reported that so far we have not received any word on action by the university Council on Academic Affairs (CAA) the proposal, from Engineering's College Committee on Academic Affairs (CCAA), to lift the 3.0 cap that currently exists in the College of Engineering on the gpa that may be required of pre-majors for admission to any engineering major; this cap needs to be lifted before we can increase the gpa requirement for admission to the CIS/CSE majors to 3.2. According to the minutes of the last several CAA meetings (available on their web site), the question was discussed at several of the meetings, although a lot of the discussion seems to have been about enrollment management in our department rather than about the actual CCAA proposal. According to Dean Gustafson of the college, CAA should have acted on the CCAA proposal at its (CAA's) meeting of May 2nd, although we still don't have any word on what, if anything, CAA decided.
Committee members were very concerned about this delay. If CAA approves of the proposal so the increase in the gpa requirement for admission to CIS/CSE can go into effect for Au '01, we will, as soon as we receive word of this, notify all our pre-majors that, as indicated in our previous letter to them (sent out near the end of winter quarter), the gpa for admission to the CIS and CSE majors will indeed be 3.2 effective Au '01. If, on the other hand, CAA does not approve the proposal to remove the 3.0 cap, or does not approval its removal for Au '01, we will notify all pre-majors that the gpa requirement for Au '01 will remain at 3.0, but that they can expect closeouts in CIS courses; in this case, we will also notify all our majors of the possibility of closeouts. A rough back-of-the-envelope calculation during the meeting suggested that while currently about 4% of course requests by majors for CIS courses are not met, if the gpa requirement were to remain at 3.0 for the next academic year, the over-enrollment of students will result in perhaps as much as 10 to 15% of the requests not being met; in this case, there is clearly a possibility of students' graduations being delayed. That is why the committee felt it would be important to notify all students of the potential for closeouts if the gpa requirement stays at 3.0.
In either of these cases, the notifications need to go out within the next few days, given that the end of spring quarter is fast approaching. The advising office has been receiving numerous calls from anxious students and parents about this. We will try to work with CCAA and CAA to ensure that students get this important information as soon as possible.
2. Prerequisites for admission to CSE major: Currently, all engineering students, including CSE students, are required to take Phys 131, 132, 133, and Chem 121, 125. According to the revised changes in the Engineering core which goes into effect this fall, CSE students will only be required to take Phys 131, 132 and Chem 121; they will also be required to take one additional science course which may be Phys 133, or Chem 125, or Biol 113.
Currently, one of the pre-requisites for admission to the CSE major reads "Completion of either Chem 121 and 125, or Phys 131 and 132". Since Chem 125 will no longer be required of CSE majors, the committee felt that this pre-requisite should be revised as follows: "Completion of Phys 131, and either Chem 121 or Phys 132". The revision was approved after a brief discussion. This will have to be also approved by the CIS faculty and by the CCAA before it goes into effect.
3. Undergrad student lounge: This topic was again postponed because of lack of time.
The meeting adjourned at 9:30 am.
Next meeting: TBA.
1. Report on status of increasing, to 3.2, the GPA requirement for admission to the CIS/CSE majors: Bruce reported that according to information from CCAA, the University Council on Academic Affairs has approved the lifting of the 3.0 cap on the gpa for admission to engineering majors. Per CCAA discussion, this means that we can implement the 3.2 requirement effective Sp '02 admission to the CSE and the CIS majors.
The committee strongly felt that it is important to inform both current pre-majors as well as incoming freshmen about this as soon as possible.
2. New core (for CSE) and transition guidelines: The University Council on Academic Affairs has approved the proposed changes in the engineering core for the CSE program. Details of the new program (as well as a comparison with the existing program) are available on-line. The new curriculum differs mainly with respect to the science, engineering, and mathematics courses that students will be required to take. The new curriculum will be applicable to all students entering OSU in Au '01 (or later).
CCAA has established a set of transition guidelines for current students who wish to follow the new curriculum.
3. Freshmen admitted to pre-CSE: Peg reported that 253 students have been direct enrolled into the pre-CSE major for Au '01. This compares with approximately 140 students for Au '00. Part of the increase may be attributed to the recent abolition of UVC but it was not clear exactly how much. In any case, there does not seem to be any decrease in student interest in CSE (we assume that the situation with respect to CIS is similar although we do not yet have those numbers). It was also noted that the 253 figure represented 34% of the students who have been direct enrolled into Engineering and have declared a (pre-)major.
Given these numbers, the committee felt, as stated earlier in the minutes, that it is important that incoming students are properly notified of the high gpa requirement for admission to the CSE and CIS majors.
4. Undergrad student lounge: We had a brief discussion on this topic. Neelam and Peg will prepare a report summarizing the situation in other departments in the College. This should let us make a case for setting up a CIS UG lounge.
The meeting adjourned at 9:30 am.
Next meeting: May 31.
1. Jacob Yackenovich has been the student rep on UGSC for over a year now and has been a very active participant. Jacob will graduate at the end of this quarter (and has accepted a position at IBM, North Carolina, where he will begin working shortly). Jacob has been so conscientious that he even helped identify possible replacements for himself once he graduates, and brought along one of them, Bill Fahrendorf, to introduce to the committee! The committee unanimously adopted a resolution thanking Jacob for his outstanding service to UGSC and wishing him much success in his future career.
2. Report on status of increasing, to 3.2, the GPA requirement for admission to the CIS/CSE majors: The College of Engineering has sent an e-mail message to all undergraduate students in the college informing them of the elimination of guarantee of admission to any engineering major if the student has a CPHR of 3.0 or higher. The department will now inform, electronically and by hardcopy letters, all CSE and CIS pre-majors that the CPHR required for admission to the CSE and CIS majors, effective Spring 2002, will be 3.2. There was also a suggestion that it might be useful to send a follow-up message to all students who received the e-mail from the college, to the effect that effective Sp '02, the gpa required for admission to CSE would be 3.2. The reason for sending such a message would be to make sure that engineering students who might be considering switching to CSE are aware of the requirement. Moreover the college message explicitly mentioned CSE, so it would seem appropriate to send such a follow-up message. (But the mailing list is maintained by the college and it is not known whether the college will agree to forward such a message to the list.)
We also discussed the question of informing incoming freshmen who have been admitted to OSU, have paid the acceptance fee, and been direct enrolled into pre-CSE or pre-CIS of this increase in the gpa required for admission to the major. The University Council on Academic Affairs (CAA), in approving the proposal to lift the 3.0 cap, expressed concern that prospective computing majors receive adequate notification of the change. The committee felt that this includes the incoming freshmen since they have, as of this month, paid an acceptance fee, are identified as pre-CSE/pre-CIS majors in the university database, and are treated as students for all practical purposes. Indeed, these are exactly the students who are most likely to be affected by the increase in the gpa requirement; by contrast, current pre-majors will generally be able to complete all prerequisites and apply for admission to the major long before Spring '02 and hence would not be affected.
Many of the incoming freshmen will attend orientation this summer. Peg and Neelam will work with Judith McDonald and Tom Davenport of Eng and ASC to ensure that information about the 3.2 requirement is given to the students attending orientation. Unfortunately, it is not clear how effective this would be since, during orientation, students are apparently not separated according to their intended majors, so there is no way to focus the message specifically towards the pre-CSE and pre-CIS students. Hence the committee strongly felt that those incoming freshmen who have been direct enrolled as pre-CSE and pre-CIS should also be informed by hardcopy letters mailed to their home addresses. Neelam will talk to Stu about this.
3. CSE program survey results: The survey results for this year for the CSE program are now available and maybe accessed from Neelam's ABET page. A new type of survey was instituted this year, for on-campus recruiters. This survey asks the respondents to rank the importance, on a scale of "Not Important" to "Extremely Important", each of our program objectives; results of this survey are also available via the same web page (in the "Assessment and Feedback Mechanisms" section of the page).
The results of the surveys were generally consistent with previous years' surveys. One point that was noted was that according to the exit survey, we may be doing slightly better with respect to the objective, "To provide graduates with an understanding of the overall human context in which engineering and computing activities take place", as well as with respect to the outcomes "Students will have the ability to work with others and on multi-disciplinary teams in both classroom and laboratory environments" and "Students will demonstrate an ability to communicate effectively".
It was also noted that the objectives and outcomes listed in the exit survey are the original set. The survey will be updated in fall to reflect the (slightly) revised objectives and outcomes (which were approved by faculty in last fall).
4. Undergrad Student lounge: According to information provided by Peg, nearly every engineering department has a lounge for use by its undergrad majors. The one exception seems to be Aeronautical which does not have a lounge but Aviation, which is in the same department, does; presumably Aero students can use that lounge. We did not know of any other department that does not have a lounge for its undergraduates; specifically, ISE, MSE, ME, FAB, EE, and ChemE, all have undergrad lounges (or equivalent). It was also mentioned that there was a recent article in the Lantern about the wonderful lounge that the Physics department has for its undergrad majors and the strong positive impact it has on the students.
Peg and Neelam will put together a report that details the lounge facilities, in particular the size of the lounge, in each department, and the (approximate) number of undergraduate majors in that department. This should provide a solid basis for arguing that our department, as the one with by far the largest number of undergrad majors in the college plus an equal number from ASC, simply has to provide a reasonable informal gathering place for our undergraduates to meet in.
The meeting adjourned at 9:30 am.
Next meeting: Fall quarter.