CIS Undergraduate Studies Committee
meeting minutes
2003-'04

• June 1
• May 18
• May 11
• May 4
• April 20
• April 6
• March 10
• March 3
• February 25
• February 18
• February 11
• January 28
• January 21
• January 14
• January 7
• December 2
• November 18
• October 28
• October 21
• October 14
• September 30
• Engineering GEC proposal

Minutes of the UGSC Meeting,
June 1

1. CIS 758 and Capstone Criteria:

   Rajiv made a detailed presentation of the contents of CIS 758, how the course is organized, and how it meets our new criteria for capstone courses.

   The course is very much project driven. Students are organized into teams of typically five students each. Many of the projects are drawn from industry and the results of the students' work is often used by the industries, typically as a prototype to build their final systems on. For the last year or so, Rajiv and Mike (Stovsky) have taught all sections of the course. While their respective sections are similar in many ways, there are also some differences between Rajiv's sections and Mike's sections. The main difference is that there is a slightly greater stress on process when Mike teaches the course, the stress tends to be a bit more on the product when Rajiv teaches the course. But in both cases, providing students with a real-world software development experience is the central goal, with teamworking, oral and written communications, etc. all being essential components.

   The course focuses on teaching, and having the students engage in, good, industry-standard, software engineering practices; in particular, questions of configuration management, project management (team roles, schedules, etc.), software development methodologies, etc. During the course of the quarter, students are required to produce project plans, requirements descriptions, design documents, test plans, user guides, etc. Considerable attention is paid to non-functional requirements such as scalability, security, and performance, as well as on evaluating design alternatives. Oral presentations, both to peers and, where appropriate, to industry sponsors, are required of all teams throughout the quarter. Some recent project sponsors include Ford, Northwestern Ohio Security Systems, and OSU. Regular guest lectures by local or visiting software professionals are part of the course. Each student team makes a final group presentation and demo of the project; individual students in each team are required to submit a final written report that include self-evaluation as well as peer-evaluation components.

   In summary, the course is an excellent and popular capstone design course, and meets all the capstone course criteria: The course is at the senior level, and builds on such courses as CIS 560, 601, and 757. Design is the major activity in the course with students considering various design alternatives. Students are required to account for such constraints as performance, robustness (the specific issues addressed depend on the particular project). Standards such as XML, SRS, SDS, play an important role in the design considerations since many of the projects are web-services related. The interaction with industry professionals both via industry-sponsored projects as well the guest lectures, ensures that professional issues are very much in the picture. Ethical issues are not directly addressed but questions such as security that many of the projects are concerned with involve these issues. Teamworking and oral and written communications are strong components of the course.

   Students seem to enjoy the course, and it certainly helps prepare them for professional practice. The committee felt that the course definitely meets our criteria for capstone courses and indeed is an excellent capstone design course. (The slides Rajiv used in his presentation and other information about the course are available on-line).

The meeting adjourned at 3:30 pm.

Next meeting: Fall quarter.

Minutes of the UGSC Meeting,
May 18

1. CIS 772 and Capstone Criteria:

   Hakan made a detailed presentation of the contents of CIS 772, how the course is organized, and how it meets our criteria for capstone courses.

   The course is very much project driven. Students are organized into teams of typically five students each. The instructor presents a few (typically three) possible projects; students may also come up with their own ideas for projects, and usually there are two or three such ideas. Each team is required to write up a project proposal early in the quarter so that (especially for the projects that are based on students' own ideas) the instructor can evaluate the reasonableness of the proposed project, its scope, approach, etc.

   For the first three to four weeks, class time is devoted to the instructor lecturing on various technical topics, especially the ones underlying the projects suggested by the instructor. For the next two weeks, there are presentations by student teams reporting on initial progress in their respective projects, as well as, in the case of teams working on student-proposed projects, on technical ideas underlying those projects. Each student in each team is required to make presentations. Student teams are also required to submit weekly reports on their projects. And they submit a final report as well. In addition, individual students are required to, at the end of the quarter, submit an individual report on their contributions to the project, a self-evaluation of what they learned from the project, as well as a peer evaluation.

   During the seventh week of the quarter, each team is required to make a "midterm-demo" of their project. The final demo is during the finals week. All students attend all presentations. They also do a peer evaluation based on these presentations.

   The projects themselves pay considerable attention to important practical issues such as response time, usability of the web interface, etc. Some in class time is also spent on discussing on important standards such as XML; and students use tools and technologies such as SOAP, that are important in practice.

   Overall, the committee felt that the course was a very good capstone design course and definitely meets all our criteria. Students seem to enjoy the course and seem to benefit quite a bit from the course. (One minor point that came up during the discussion was that thecourse lists "CIS 516 or 757" as one of the prerequisites. This should be replaced by "CIS 616 or 757". Hakan will work with the Curriculum Committee to take care of this.)

   
   

2. Evaluation of advising services provided by the Advising Office:
   Peg presented some ideas for establishing a mechanism for students to evaluate the services provided by the Undergraduate Advising Office. She has prepared a survey that asks the respondent to evaluate such items as the quality of information provided about GEC courses, the quality of responses to e-mail questions, etc. The idea is to have the survey available on-line, perhaps from the undergrad web pages. The system staff have agreed to work with Peg to get the survey on-line. We will probably continue to discuss and fine tune the survey questions.

The meeting adjourned at 3:30 pm.

Next meeting: June 1.

Minutes of the UGSC Meeting,
May 11

1. Assessment of BS CSE program: We continued discussion of possible changes in how we survey the BS CSE program. No conclusions were reached but we will investigate how easy it would be to make changes such as moving to an on-line survey for alumni, etc. We also briefly discussed possible specific changes in the questions such as splitting the questions with respect to faculty advising versus advising by the Advising Office.

2. Possible changes to the program: One general observation was that the ultimate goal of all these assessments is supposed to be to allow us to identify and implement needed changes and improvements to the program. So the rest of the time was spent on discussing possible changes:
   • We recently allowed CSE majors to use one of the courses in the Business Minor to count against the seven "additional hours" of GEC that they are required to take. It seems reasonable to make this a requirement for all CSE majors. We have had discussions with the people in the Business College most directly involved with the courses and they seemed quite interested in and supportive of this. So early next year, we will propose this to the faculty.

   • One area in which our surveys have indicated need for improvement is communication skills, especially oral communication. There is a new course, JCom 321 (5 credits) focused on oral communications that is offered regularly that would seem to be well suited for our students. If we could treat this course also as a GEC course, then we could require it of all CSE majors. And we may be able to do just this if the current COE proposal of reducing the GEC requirements for students in the college from the current 38 hours to 33 hours is accepted by the university. In such a case, we would require our students to have, in addition to the college-required 33 hours, twelve (rather than seven) additional hours of GEC since our accreditation requirements mandate 45 hours. We could then count JCom 321 as part of these twelve hours. We will consider this if and when the college GEC proposal goes through.

   • Another area that we have heard concerns about (for example at the annual Undergraduate Forums) is that students may not be getting sufficient experience in developing software from scratch. A way to address this problem that has been proposed is the introduction of a course that students would take between CIS 321 and 560. One important point of the course would be to require students to work on a series of three or four non-trivial labs (each lab could possibly, but not necessarily, build on the previous one), and this would be the main activity in the course. Students would work by themselves, not in teams. Early next year, we will try to identify people who might be able and willing to develop such a course. The recent C# might serve as a possible model although the proposed course will be at least 2 credits, whereas the C# course was 1 credit. One key aspect of the C# course that might be worth emulating in the proposed course is the very active and central role of one or two key undergraduate students in developing the course. There are also questions about resources for developing and teaching the course which will have to be addressed.

The meeting adjourned at 3:30 pm.

Next meeting: May 18.

Minutes of the UGSC Meeting,
May 4

1. Results of surveys of BS CSE program: We discussed the results of this year's exit survey, alumni survey, and supervisor survey of the BS CSE program. The results are available by following the links in the page related to the objectives, outcomes, assessments, and feedback for the program; scroll down to the section on "Assessments and Feedback Mechanisms" and follow the links under items (1), (2), and (3). The "combined" results provide the results of the last several years' surveys.

   A number of observations were made:

   • The survey results seem to have remained fairly constant over the last few years.
   • The number of respondents for the alumni survey and the supervisor survey are (and have been) very low: Perhaps we could address this by offering some incentives such as a raffle for a couple of Amazon coupons or something.
   • Consider changing how the survey is done. Maybe do it over the web? Currently, the paper surveys are sent out by the Engineering College. A problem with doing it over the web is that we don't have the contact addresses for alumni (and we don't want to take on the responsibility of maintaining the addresses). One possibility might be to have the college still send out the surveys but in the cover letter, provide a url where the survey could be completed on-line.
   • The alumni survey may be too long since it asks questions about such things as the effectiveness of the TAs in areas such as Math and Physics. But changing this might be a bit involved since these portions of the alumni survey are college-wide. So any changes will have to be accepted by all the programs. (Neelam will talk to the college's "Outcomes committee" -which is the committee responsible for these activities- about this.)
   • It may be useful to split the question in (part 3 -- this is the part that is program specific) of the alumni survey concerning employment and preparation for graduate study into two separate questions.
   • It may similarly be useful to split the question concerning team-working and multidisciplinary interactions into two separate questions.
   • The difference between the rating for the importance of communication skills and the rating for our graduates' abilities/preparation in this area, was as pronounced as ever. In the past, we had tried to see if there might be a course in in the Communication department (or rather, Journalism and Communication) that our students might be required or allowed to take. Although there seemed to be such courses, budget questions related to offering enough sections of the course so our students could take them could not be resolved. Maybe with the new budget model, these problems can be resolved. We will take another look at this.

The meeting adjourned at 3:25 pm.

Next meeting: May 11.

Minutes of the UGSC Meeting,
April 20

1. Including a Business course in the GEC portion of the BS CSE curriculum:
   One important feedback that we have consistently received from alumni and recruiters is that our students need to have some knowledge and understanding of essential business ideas and practices. Currently, Engineering students are required (by the College) to take a minimum of 38 credit hours of GEC courses. BS CSE majors are required to take an additional 7 credit hours of GEC (to meet the minimum 45 hours required by accreditation criteria of the Computing Accreditation Commission (CAC)). The proposal was to require BS CSE students to take one of the five courses that constitutes the Business Minor and count the course toward the 7 additional GEC hours. (Although these courses are not in OSU's lists of GEC courses, CAC guidelines allow such courses to be used toward its 45 hour requirement.)

   Several points were noted during the discussion:

   1. Each of these courses has Econ 200 as a prerequisite. This means that students would have to take that course in addition to the Business course. Econ 200 is currently approved as a GEC course in the Social Sciences category, so this would not result in any increase in the number of hours in the program. However, it would reduce the flexibility of the program somewhat.
   2. BS CSE students, as are all Engineering majors, are currently required to take ISE 504, Engineering Economics. It would seem reasonable that ISE 504 could serve as an alternate prerequisite in place of Econ 200; if that were the case, the problem in (a) would be solved. However, preliminary discussions with the Business faculty suggest that ISE 504 may not be a satisfactory substitute. This issue may be worth exploring further.(Rajiv, Matt, and Neelam will talk to the Business faculty about this.)
   3. BS CSE students in the Information Systems option are already required to take AMIS 310 (or the equivalent AMIS 211) which is one of the courses in the Business Minor. They are also required to take BusMgt 630; this course is not in the Business Minor but students who take this course are not allowed to take BusMgt 430 which IS in the Minor. These students would be required to take one of the remaining three courses in the Minor. This seems reasonable, given the likely career paths for these students following graduation.
   The consensus in the committee was that this would be a very useful addition to the BS CSE curriculum. But given the uncertainty with respect to the possibility of using ISE 504 as an alternate prerequisite in place of Econ 200, it was felt that it might be appropriate, for now, to allow BS CSE students use one of these courses toward the 7 additional hours of GEC rather than require them to do so, and the proposal was modified to that effect. The modified proposal was passed unanimously (and will be presented to the faculty at an early date).

The meeting adjourned at 3:25 pm.

Next meeting: TBA.

Minutes of the UGSC Meeting,
April 6

1. Agenda items for Spring quarter and beyond: We listed a number of items that we hope to pursue in the coming months and briefly discussed priorities.
   1. Changing the name of the CIS degree to "Computer Science": With the department name changed to Computer Science and Engineering, there is no good reason for the name of our ASC degree to be "Computer and Information Science". Moreover, the word "Information" in the name of the degree apparently confuses some potential employers who mistake for an MIS-type degree. Hence it seems appropriate to change the name of the degree to "Computer Science". But such a change would have to go through several levels of approvals (including the Board of Trustees) so it will take a while. (After the meeting, Stu suggested it might also be a good idea to consult with the new chair about this change.)

   2. Changes in the CIS curriculum: The changes in the CIS curriculum (mainly consisting of replacing Math 254 by Math 566 plus two hours of technical electives) that were recently approved by the faculty will shortly be sent to the MPS committee for its approval. We hope to have MPS approval by the end of the quarter, with the changes being effective Au '04.
      There was also a brief discussion of the possibility again of adding CIS 601 to the curriculum as part of this set of changes; this was considered especially worthwhile since many CIS students take one of the courses designated as a capstone course for the CSE program, and CIS 601 is an important prereq for the capstone courses. But after further discussion with Stu after the meeting, it looks like additional sections of 601 will not be offered next year so we will have to wait until Au '05 to make this change. So there is no agenda item for the committee on this topic.

   3. Capstone courses: We will continue evaluating each of the CSE capstone courses against the (proposed) new capstone course criteria and work with course coordinators to make any needed changes, especially with respect to the teamworking and communication (oral and written) components of the courses. (Neelam will talk to the coordinators of the capstone courses to arrange for them to tell the committee about their particular courses.)

   4. Business course in the CSE curriculum: Feedback from alumni and other constituents over the years has strongly suggested that CSE majors need to learn business skills as part of their curriculum. We will investigate possible ways to add a business course to the CSE curriculum (without increasing the number of credit hours in the program). The College of Business has recently developed some courses, such as Bus Fin 420 and Bus Mgt 430, that would seem to be appropriate.

   5. Advising guidelines: New faculty members often have questions about advising that are not specifically answered anywhere. Possible solutions such as putting together a set of web pages explaining the essential points and answering common questions, or organizing a "workshop" at the start of each year for new faculty (or rather for faculty who have been here for a year since new faculty are not assigned any undergrad advisees), were considered. Neelam and Peg will work on this.

   6. Student organizations: The web pages of various student organizations in the department, with the notable exception of that of NTSig, seem to be in serious need of update and maintainence. Peg will contact the officeholders to try and ensure that these pages are maintained on a regular basis.

   Since the CSE accreditation evaluation is on the horizon, we will focus on items (c) and (d) (with (a) being on a longer term).

The meeting adjourned at 3:30 pm.

Next meeting: TBA.

Minutes of the UGSC Meeting,
March 10

1. Report on the Undergraduate Forum of Feb. 18:
   Neelam reported on the Undergraduate Forum that was held on Feb. 18. The report is available on-line. Some possible action items were identified, based on what we heard at the Forum:
   • Work with the people from the Engineering and ASC Career Services Offices to see how best to ensure that CIS majors are not shortchanged when it comes to getting interview opportunities with companies that recruit on-campus.
   • Consider changing the name of the CIS major to Computer Science.
   • Consider adding a Business course as a required course in the CSE major; this will count toward the GEC requirements of the CSE major (and will not add to the number of hours in the program).
   • Consider introducing a course (or courses) that deal with practical programming activities, possibly even at the 100-level. Georgia Tech apparently has recently introduced such a course and it has been very successful. We will look at that model.
   • Consider possible changes in the core curriculum, including possibly in the RESOLVE sequence.
   We will discuss these in the Spring quarter.

2. Report on faculty actions on UGSC items:
   The department faculty, at its meeting of March 8, took the following actions:
   • Approved the reduction of the GPA required for admission to the majors to 2.7 with immediate effect; the 2.7 requirement will remain in effect until fall quarter when we will reevaluate it.
   • Approved the following change in the BS CIS curriculum:
        Replace Math 254 by [Math 566 + addition of 2 hours to tech electives].
     UGSC recommendation was:
        Replace Math 254 by [Math 566 + CIS 601 + addition of 1 hour of tech elective]
     but the faculty felt that the 601 capacity is inadequate at the moment for dealing with all CSE and CIS majors, and hence it would be inappropriate to require the course of CIS majors. The faculty encouraged us to consider bringing back the proposal of requiring 601 for CIS at a future time, perhaps late next year.
     Some faculty members also had concerns about our proposal to make the following change in the Advanced Studies option:
        Replace "One of CIS 725, 755, 780; and One of CIS 760, 775;" by
        "CIS 725; and One of CIS 755, 760, 775, 780".
     This was felt to be a potential problem because 725 is a difficult course even for grad students; requiring all Adv. Studies option students to take it may be a bit too much. So we were asked to rethink this.
   • Briefly discussed the proposed revised criteria for CSE capstone courses. The faculty generally approved of these changes, and also noted the importance of ensuring that our capstone courses are as effective as they can be, given the central role that the capstone requirement plays in EC 2000.
   • Briefly discussed the proposed revised CSE Objectives and Outcomes. There was some discussion of the terminology that ABET uses but no major suggestions for changes. [After the meeting, Stu sent Neelam some suggestions for wording changes; some of these have been incorporated in the draft.]

   With respect to the changes in the CIS curriculum: After a brief discussion, we agreed that the proposed change in the Advanced Studies option is indeed problematic, so we will drop it. The changes that the faculty did approve in the CIS curriculum still have to go through the MPS curriculum committee before becoming effective. Neelam will work on this.

   With respect to the changes in the CSE Objectives/Outcomes, and the changes in the Capstone course criteria: Neelam had also posted, to the student newsgroups, pointers to the proposed revisions to the capstone course criteria, and to the CSE Objectives and Outcomes, inviting comments. After a further final discussion in UGSC early in Spring quarter, including taking account of any further comments that may be received from students, we will ask for final approval of both the revised capstone course criteria and the revised CSE Objectives and Outcomes statement. We will also continue evaluting existing capstone courses against the revised criteria and work with instructors and coordinators to identify any needed changes.

The meeting adjourned at 2:30 pm.

Next meeting: Spring quarter.

Minutes of the UGSC Meeting,
March 3

1. Criteria for capstone courses: After a brief discussion, the committee unanimously approved the proposed revisions (revised criteria+rationale) in the criteria for capstone courses.

2. CIS 682 as a capstone course: Rick Parent made a detailed presentation on CIS 682, Computer animation. Some of the key features that make it suitable as a CSE capstone course are:
   • Stress on design: Students are required to engage in a quarter-long, fairly intensive, design project; the main project deliverable is a short animation.
   • Stress on team-working: Students are organized into teams of about five students each. The teams often include an art student thus contributing to the multidisciplinary nature of the design experience.
   • Stress on oral-presentation: Each team is required to make four presentations, essentially progress reports on their design and implementation activities.
   • Stress on documentation: Each team is required to maintain a web page with storyboard and status of the project including still images and test animations as they are generated, along with descriptions of responsibilities and progress of the group members.
   • Grading: Although there is a midterm and a final exam, they count only for 30% of the total grade, with the rest being for presentations (20%), documentation (20%), and final project (30%).
   The committee felt that the course clearly meets the capstone course criteria. The only concern was that it does not list CIS 601 as a prerequisite; Rick agreed that it would be appropriate to change the prerequisites to include 601. Subject to this change, the committee unanimously approved the designation of CIS 682 as a capstone course for CSE majors. It is particularly suitable for the Software Systems option; and also appropriate for Information Systems and Hardware/Software.

The meeting adjourned at 2:30 pm.

Next meeting: 3/10/'04.

Minutes of the UGSC Meeting,
February 25

1. GPA for admission to CIS/CSE majors: Based on discussions in previous meetings, the committee decided unanimously to recommend to faculty (at its meeting of 3/8/'04) that the GPA required for admission to the majors be reduced to 2.7 effective immediately. We will revisit the issue in the fall quarter.

2. Changes in CIS curriculum: Last year (see minutes) we had decided to make some changes in the curriculum of the CIS program, to correspond to the changes in the CSE program made about two years ago, involving the addition of Math 566 as a required second course on discrete math. But the changes were held up because one of our proposals was to omit Math 254 from the CIS program and Math 254 was a prerequisite for Stat 427 (which is a required course for the program). Based on the content of Stat 427 and based on input from our student representatives, it seemed that Math 153 would be an adequate prerequisite for the course. The statistics faculty agreed but it has taken this long to have the prerequisite officially changed. The change has now been made, so we can proceed with the proposed changes to the CIS program.

   The proposal we had approved last year was:

   • Require Math 566 for CIS majors.
     
   • Remove Math 254 from the requirements for CIS majors.
     
   • Require CIS 601 for CIS majors.
     
   • For the Software Systems option: remove CIS 601 from the list of recommended elective courses; and add 1 hour to the "Electives" portion, increasing the total number of hours in the option from 21 to 22.
   • For the Information Systems option: remove CIS 601 from the list of recommended elective courses; and add 1 hour to the "Electives" portion, increasing the total number of hours in the option from 25 to 26.
   • For the Scientific Computing option: add Math 254 to the list of "required courses"; remove CIS 601 from the list of recommended elective courses; and reduce the "electives" portion to 7 hours (from the current 11 hours), increasing the total number of hours in the option from 25 to 26;
     also, replace the requirement of "Either CIS 621, 721; or CIS 640, 642" by "CIS 621, 721" (since CIS 640 and 642 are no longer being offered).
   • For the Advanced Studies option: remove Math 566 from the list of "required courses"; replace "One of CIS 725, 755, 780; and One of CIS 760, 775;" by "CIS 725; and One of CIS 755, 760, 775, 780;" remove CIS 601 from the list of recommended electives; increase the number of elective hours from 10 to 13; the total number of hours in the option will remain at 22.
   After a brief discussion, the committee again approved the proposal unanimously. It will presented to the faculty for its approval (at the meeting of 3/8).

3. Revised CSE objectives and outcomes statement: We had previously discussed the proposed revised objectives and outcomes statement. There have been some minor wording changes in the statement based on feedback from the Advisory Board. After a brief discussion, the committee unanimously approved the revised statement. It will presented to the faculty for its approval (at the meeting of 3/8).

   It was also noted that our CSE Exit Survey will have to be updated appropriately to correspond to the changes in the objectives and outcomes statement. One problem with this Survey (as well as with the Alumni and Supervisor Surveys) is that it requires some manual intervention each year to take care of the gathering and tabulating of the results. We will see if there are ways to mechanize the task more effectively.

4. Revised criteria for CSE capstone courses: We continued discussion of the proposed revised criteria for capstone courses. One change that was suggested was to reword the requirement about the design component to ensure that each student participates in the design activities. We will continue the discussion at the meeting of 3/5.

The meeting adjourned at 2:30 pm.

Next meeting: 3/3/'04.

Minutes of the UGSC Meeting,
February 18

1. CIS 731: CIS 731 is one of the capstone courses for the CSE program (the other courses being CIS 758, 762, 772, 776, and 778). We plan to analyze each of the capstone courses to see how well they meet the current capstone course criteria, as well as the proposed revised criteria; this meeting was devoted to analyzing CIS 731.

   Prasad has been teaching this course for the last two years and is scheduled to teach it again in Spring of this year. The students seem to enjoy the course; indeed, it was at the suggestion of one of the student reps, David Wannemacher, to UGSC that we invited Prasad to tell us about the course and how he organizes it. Here are some of the highlights of the course:

   • The course follows the official syllabus fairly closely, including the text book used in the course.
   • The main focus of the course is on the project although during the first few weeks some important new material is introduced; this includes CLIPS, the system that the students use to build their expert system on.
   • During the first few weeks, some time is also spent on software engineering-type issues, in particular, questions related to designing large software systems well.
   • Students are organized into teams of (typically) four students each.
   • Students are not given the problem for which they are asked to build an expert system, but rather are expected to identify such a problem by consulting with people (typically students and faculty) in other domains such as transportation, medical, etc.. They are then required to work with the instructor to define the scope of the problem so that it is neither too trivial nor too ambitious. Often, students continue to consult with the outside "experts" to get any needed information about the problem domain. Some example problems that student teams have identified and worked on are: ... to be completed.
   • Students submit an outline of how they plan to attack the problem, including some details of the expert system to be built. The instructor provides feedback on the outline.
   • Starting with the third or fourth week of the quarter, class time is used to discuss the teams' project designs. Team members work with each other, and the instructor interacts with each team one at a time, answering any questions the team may have with CLIPS, pointing out potential problems in their designs etc.
   • During the last two weeks of the quarter, each team is required to make an oral presentation (of about 30 minutes duration) on their project.
   • Each team is also required to turn in a complete report on their project.
   • There is a midterm exam but no final exam.

   The committee was very pleased with the course and felt that it definitely satisfies the intent of the current and the proposed capstone course criteria. One possible improvement is in discussion ethical and social issues; many of the problems that the students work on should raise social and ethical concerns. Another possible improvement is in the documentation that the students submit; perhaps in addition to the initial outline, and the final report, students could be asked to submit, perhaps during the seventh or eighth week, an interim report on the project's progress. Prasad felt these were worthwhile suggestions and agreed to try them in Spring. He also agreed to come back and give us another presentation in the fall quarter.

2. GPA for admission to the major: We had little time to discuss this but the consensus seemed to be that we should reduce the GPA requirement to 2.7 now, let it remain at 2.7 until fall quarter, and revisit the issue at that time. We will briefly discuss this again at the next meeting and come up with a proposal to present to the faculty.

The meeting adjourned at 2:30 pm.

Next meeting: 2/25/'04.

Minutes of the UGSC Meeting,
February 11

1. GPA for admission to the major: Over the last three or four years, we have had to change the GPA for enrollment to the CSE and CIS majors several times because of substantial changes in demand. These same changes have also meant, given that the model is based on the demand during the immediately preceding quarters, that there have been substantial differences between what the model predicted for how many students would be admitted to the majors for a given GPA requirement and the actual numbers that in fact were admitted. When the demand was going up, the model under-predicted the number; more recently, in the face of dropping demand, the model over-predicted the number.

   Bruce had suggested that using the enrollment data from 221/222 might provide a better model. We haven't yet got all the data for 221, but Bruce showed us the results of a model he had constructed that was based data for 222. This model seemed to do better at predicting than our current model. We conjectured that this is because the 222 enrollment data are more representative of the demand that can be expected in the next few quarters, than is the data about number of students admitted to the majors. We also conjectured that 221 data (or possibly even 201 data) might do even better. Yet another possibility would be to use data about the number of fall quarter freshmen who express an interest in CIS/CSE. It seemed plausible that these numbers would be even more closely related to the demand for the majors in the next few quarters than the 222 (or 221) enrollment figures. Moreover, this number should be available during spring quarter of the preceding year, so we should be able carry out our GPA calculations in a timely manner.

   Since the most recent four-quarter admit totals seem to have stabilized at about 190 (which is about where we want it to be), one possibility would be to leave the GPA requirement at 2.8. Another would be to reduce it slightly, to 2.7, which is the number our formula indicates we should set it at.

   It was also suggested that we should consider a completely different approach to the problem. Rather than fine tuning the GPA cut-off every so often, have a policy along the following lines:

   Any student who has finished 222 and has met all other requirements will be admitted to the major if he/she has a GPA of 3.0. Additional students whose GPA is less than 3.0 may be admitted in the Summer quarter (Spring applicants to the major), based on room availability.
   (Students with GPA over 3.0 will be admitted at any time.)

   The idea here would be that we would have, in mind, some specific numerical goal N for the number of students we want to admit. In the Summer quarter, if the number of students already admitted (because they had a GPA of 3.0 or over) in the preceding four quarters is over N, we would not admit any more students; if the number is below N, we would admit the appropriate number of additional students to bring the total to N.

   Note that we cannot have just a numerical quota (as do many programs in Engineering), because the College of Arts and Science insists that students must have a specific GPA goal to shoot for to get into the major. That goal, in the policy above, would be 3.0. We will probably consider this policy sometime in the future.

   (Note: Neelam mentioned the possibility of changing to this policy to Stu after the meeting. Stu didn't feel comfortable with it, in particular that students below 3.0 may not be able to make progress in the program even if they are ultimately admitted to the major. Stu also suggested, given that we will have a new chair next year, that it might be best to wait until next year to consider a major change such as this. Based on Stu's comments, and further email discussion among committee members, we are likely to recommend reducing the GPA requirement to 2.7 now, leave it at 2.7 until fall quarter, and revisit this issue in the fall. This will be decided at the next meeting.)

2. UG forum: The annual Undergraduate Forum is scheduled for February 18 at 6:30-8:00 pm. Bruce, Neelam, Peg, Rajiv, Rick, and Stu will attend. Announcements will be posted shortly on the newsgroups.

The meeting adjourned at 2:30 pm.

Next meeting: 2/18/'04.

Minutes of the UGSC Meeting,
January 28

1. We discussed the feedback from the Advisory Board. One suggestion concerning making students consciously aware of life-cycle issues was that perhaps the individual course syllabi could explicitly identify which stage of the life-cycle the particular course was primarily concerned with. Another (concerning the same topic) was that perhaps this topic really belongs in ISE 504 since the life-cycle is not just about software products.

   A different comment concerned the topic of web-services (item 4 on the feedback list); an Adv. Bd. member had noted that this is one area in which development was still being done in-house by many organizations (instead of being out-sourced or off-shored as is the case with much other development work). The comment was that since this is not discussed in any of our courses, except possibly in particular offerings of CIS 758, it may be appropriate to include it in the regular syllabus of some suitable course that all (or at least all Software Systems option) students will take.

   In any case, we will keep an eye on these (and other items in the feedback list), and make changes as appropriate and feasible.

2. GPA for admission to the major: Since Summer 2003, the GPA requirement for admission to the CSE/CIS major has been at 2.8; immediately prior to that, it was 3.0. At the time that we reduced the GPA requirement (because of moderating demand for the major), the prediction was that with 2.8 as the new requirement, we would admit 207 students over a four-quarter period. In fact, it has been lower than that; during the last four quarters the number of students admitted to the major is 191. (Note that this is with 3.0 as the requirement for the first of these four quarters and 2.8 in the other three quarters.)

   With our current faculty strength, we should shoot for a target figure of about 207 admits over a four-quarter period. Based on grade distribution curves, the current demand, etc., our calculations predict that 211 students would be admitted if we were to reduce the GPA requirement to 2.7, and 232 would be admitted if the requirement were 2.6. But these predictions have been rather unreliable in the past (at least in part because of the rapid change in the demand for the major), and that will probably be the case with these numbers as well.

   It was suggested that it might be a good idea to see if we can identify any correlation between the 221/222 enrollments in a given quarter and the number of students entering the major in the immediately following quarters, with the hope of arriving at somewhat more reliable predictions. Peg will try to obtain the 221/222 enrollment history over the last three or four years, and Bruce volunteered to try to identify any correlation. We will discuss this again before deciding on our recommendation to the faculty.

3. Undergraduate Forum: We have typically held our annual Undergraudate Forum during Winter quarter, usually in late February. The plan is to do the same this year as well. We looked at possible dates for the forum, and the most likely date is Wednesday, Feb. 18, at 6:30 - 8:00 p.m. This will be finalized shortly. Several faculty as well as Peg (and possibly others from the Advising Office) will attend. Announcements about the Forum will be posted to the newsgroups and via other means.

The meeting adjourned at 2:30 pm.

Next meeting: ???

Minutes of the UGSC Meeting,
January 21

1. We continued discussion of the draft of a proposed revised version of the CSE objectives and outcomes statement. The revision accounts for the changes in the EC 2000 language. Some minor wording changes were suggested.

   The current version of the draft is available at: http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/~neelam/abet/propCseObjectives.html. Comments on the draft are welcome and should be sent to neelam@cis.ohio-state.edu. The draft will be presented to the department's Industrial Advisory Board at its meeting of Jan. 23. The proposed objectives and outcomes will also be discussed at this year's Undergraduate Student Forum which is expected to be held in February. A further revision will be prepared based on feedback from these groups and discussed at a future UGSC meeting before being presented to the faculty for discussion and approval.

2. We discussed the proposed criteria for Capstone Design courses. Much of this had been discussed during fall quarter meetings but some additional changes were dictated by (proposed) changes in the EC 2000 language of which we were not aware in the fall quarter. A number of wording changes as well as organizational changes were suggested. The current version of the proposed criteria (including the changes discussed at this meeting) is available at: http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/~neelam/abet/CAPST/rev6criteria.html. Comments on the draft should again be sent to neelam@cis.ohio-state.edu. This document will also be presented to the Advisory Board for its comments, and discussed at the student forum. We will compare a couple of exisiting Capstone courses against the proposed criteria to see how they measure up, before presenting it to faculty for discussion and approval.

The meeting adjourned at 2:30 pm.

Next meeting: Jan. 28.

Minutes of the UGSC Meeting,
January 14

1. We discussed an initial draft of a proposed revised version of the CSE objectives and outcomes statement. The revision accounts for the changes in the EC 2000 language.

   Neelam will revise the draft in accordance with this discussion, and post it (or a link to web page containing the draft) to the newsgroups for feedback from students and faculty. It will also be presented to the department's Industrial Advisory Board at its meeting of the Jan. 23. A further revision will be prepared based on feedback from these groups and discussed at a future UGSC meeting before being presented to the faculty for discussion and approval.

The meeting adjourned at 2:30 pm.

Next meeting: Jan. 21.

Note: The revised draft of the proposed objectives and outcomes for CSE statment is now available at: http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/~neelam/abet/propCseObjectives.html

Minutes of the UGSC Meeting,
January 7

1. Pending items: We briefly discussed the items that UGSC has to work on during the rest of the year.
   
   
   • Objectives/outcomes for the CSE program: There have been some changes in the EC 2000 language that may require corresponding changes in our objectives/outcomes.

   • Capstone criteria/courses: Some of the changes in the EC 2000 language have to do with the requirements for the capstone courses. This may require us to slightly revise the proposed new capstone course criteria that we came up with last quarter; the changes are likely to be simplifications of the criteria. Once we have done that, we need to look at some existing courses (perhaps CIS 731 and 758) to see how well they match up to the proposed criteria, before recommending the new criteria to the faculty for its approval.

   • CAC requirements for the CSE program: Recall that our CSE program is accredited by both EAC (Engineering Accreditation Commission) and CAC (Computing Accr. Commission). One of the requirements of the CAC reads, "... the science requirement includes a full year (two-semester or three quarter) sequence in a laboratory science for science and engineering majors ...". There was some concern that with the changes in the science requirements that we made (as part of the changes that the college made), the letter of this requirement may not be quite satisfied.

   • Possible changes in GEC requirement for CSE: Stu had suggested that we ought to consider the possibility of introducing a Business course as part of the GEC requirement for CSE majors. The College of Business has some new courses (which are part of the new Business minor) that may be appropriate.

   • New CSE minor for engineering/science students: Bruce had suggested that it would be useful to introduce a new minor (minor track?) tailored to meet the needs of science/engineering students; such a minor would include the new Applied Software Sequence as a key component.

   • GPA for admission to major: With the continuing drop in the demand for the CIS/CSE majors, we may be able to further reduce the GPA required for admission (from its current value of 2.8).

   • Replacing Math 254 in the CIS program with Math 566 (and CIS 601 and an additional tech elective hour): We had proposed this previously (see the minutes of last year) but did not act on it since Math 254 was a prerequisite for Stat 427 and that is a required course for the CIS program. The statistics people have now changed (at our request) that prerequisite to Math 153, so we can now act on this. The proposal will be presented to faculty.

The meeting adjourned at 2:25 pm.

Next meeting: Jan. 14.

Minutes of the UGSC Meeting,
December 2

1. CSE Capstone course criteria: After a brief discussion, the committee agreed that the current draft of the revised criteria is satisfactory. One change that was suggested was that the "possible models" section which suggests some possible ways of organizing capstone courses be moved to a separate document since these are only suggested models and are not requirements that capstone courses must satisfy.

   The committee also decided, after a brief discussion, that it would make sense to look at some current capstone courses to see how well they meet the revised criteria before asking faculty to approve these criteria. This makes sense because one important question that is likely to come up in the faculty is, how well do current courses meet these criteria and what changes would need to be made to those courses that don't meet them. Hence, starting in early winter, we will evaluate several of the capstone courses with respect to these criteria.

The meeting adjourned at 9:30 am.

Next meeting: Winter quarter

Minutes of the UGSC Meeting,
November 18

1. Combines BS/MS program: The combined BS/MS program allows current CSE or CIS majors to start graduate study before completing the BS degree, and allows upto 15 credit hours of courses to be counted simultaneously for credit toward both the BS and MS degrees. This can shorten the time to get a BS and MS degrees by 1-2 quarters. The details of the program are available at the departmental grad web pages.
   CCAA had asked if there were any issues they needed to address with respect to the joint program, and also wanted to know how many students were in the program.

   There was some discussion about what the purpose of the program was. If the goal is to encourage our best undergrad majors to complete their Masters' in our department, the program doesn't really seem tailored for that; for example, according to the page cited above, these students have to meet all the requirements for grad admission, including the GRE, and are treated as normal grad applicants when their applications are evaluated. Moreover, they are at a disadvantage from a support point of view since many of them would typically finish their BS program in the Spring quarter which means that quarter, and possibly the preceding quarter, would be the one(s) during which they would be working on both their BS and MS. But support is generally not available for students entering our grad program in the Winter or Spring, so they are at a disadvantage. Moreover, once they are in the joint program, students have to pay graduate tuition for their courses and this is obviously a major burden if the students do not get any support. Thus, clearly, there are no special motivations for students to consider this program (other than the possiblity of double counting upto 15 hours).

   The following recommendations were made:

   • If indeed we want our best undergrads to follow this program, we should promote it more than we do now; the best time for doing so might be in CIS 560 since it is when students are in that course that they ought to consider applying for the program.
   • If we encourage our best students to follow this program, the department must at least provide a tuition waiver that would cover the difference between grad and undergrad tuition for these students.
   There were no other issues that we felt needed to be referred to CCAA.

2. CSE Capstone course criteria: We ran out of time to complete the discussion of this item. This will be taken up at the next meeting.

The meeting adjourned at 9:30 am.

Next meeting: To be announced.

Minutes of the UGSC Meeting,
October 28

1. Criteria for CSE capstone design course: The discussion was based on our current criteria for CSE capstone courses and possible revisions.

   A number of ideas were suggested and these have been incorporated into yet another revision of the criteria. UGSC will work with coordinators of individual capstone courses to see to what degree each course meets these criteria and in cases where there is a gap, how much effort would be needed to revise the courses to narrow the gap. Once we have done this for some of the capstone courses, we will prepare a final revision of the criteria for faculty approval (and then start working on implementing needed changes in the capstone courses).

The meeting adjourned at 9:30 am.

Next meeting: To be announced.

Minutes of the UGSC Meeting,
October 21

1. Criteria for CSE capstone design course: The discussion was based on our current criteria for CSE capstone courses and possible revisions. The current criteria were approved a number of years ago. The reasons for considering a revision are that the current criteria seem a bit weak with respect to such items as oral and written communication, team working, and etc., all of which are key considerations in the EC 2000 accreditation criteria. Since we will be up for reevaluation by EAC in two years, this is a good time to take a look at the criteria, make any needed changes, and revise the courses appropriately.

   The general consensus was that the proposed revisions are indeed appropriate and reasonable. One item that was modified was to reduce the recommended size of the oral presentation from "15 minutes or longer" to "10 minutes or longer" since it was felt that 10 minutes was probably adequate for a presentation.

   Much of the remaining discussion focused on how individual courses can best implement these aspects. One interesting suggestion was that all capstone courses should be 4 credit courses, that they should meet for 3 regular lectures each week, and that they should meet for a fourth hour during which team meetings can be held, the instructor can comment on the design approaches that the teams are following, individual teams can critique each others' designs, etc.

   One concern that was expressed had to do with the language of the EC2000 criteria about the capstone design course: ".. major design experience .. incorporating engineering standards and realistic constraints that include most of the following considerations: economic; environmental; sustainability; manufacturability; ethical; health and safety; social; and political." The problem is that most of these considerations do not seem appropriate for CSE projects. For example, while some software projects may indeed raise environmental questions most, including the ones that are likely to be in our capstone courses, do not. Similarly, health and safety issues are not very likely to show up in the projects in our courses; or politicial issues, etc. Now it may well turn out that our accreditation evaluator appreciates this; or we may have an evaluator who insists on going by the book. Hence it seems important to make a special effort to include whichever of these factors we are able to. For example, "sustatinability" could be interpreted as "maintainability" which is indeed a reasonable question to ask of nearly any software project. Ethical and social issues may not belong in every project but we should make a special effort to include such questions as security, privacy, etc.

   We hope to get faculty feedback on the proposed revisions to the capstone course criteria. We will continue this discussion in our next meeting and finalize the revisions for faculty approval. Once the revised version is approved, we will look at each currently designated capstone course to see what changes are needed in the course to meet the revised criteria.

The meeting adjourned at 9:30 am.

Next meeting: To be announced.

Minutes of the UGSC Meeting,
October 14

1. Proposed revision of GEC requirements for the CSE major: There was an extended discussion of this topic by email as indicated in the minutes of the meeting of September 30. No further clarifications have been received from the college about this course. After a further brief discussion, the committee decided to recommend to the CIS faculty that this proposal be approved; but also to try to work with the College Core committee to ensure that this careful attention be paid to this course so that it primarily deals with ethical and professional issues that are of importance to engineering students, rather than being a general philosophical discussion of ethics.
2. CSE capstone courses: We had discussed the criteria for capstone courses at our meeting of May 16, 2003. We will come up with a revised set of criteria based on that discussion for consideration at our next meeting. We also briefly discussed possible (longer-term) options for capstone courses. Some of the ideas suggested were:
   • Multi-quarter capstone course: The design project in some capstone courses tend to have be abbreviated substantially because of the 1-quarter limitation. These courses would obviously benefit if we had multi-quarter courses. This benefit, of course, to be weighed against not only resource questions but also scheduling questions (both for faculty and students).
   • Interdisciplinary capstone courses: ???
   • Industry-sponsored capstone courses: Some programs (even within OSU) have industry-sponsored projects in their capstone courses. The benefit is, of course, the realism that this would bring to the project. The difficulties have to do not only with finding industry sponsors, finding interesting projects that students can complete, etc., but also questions about intellectual property rights, etc.
   • Having a single capstone course with projects from different areas: ABET considers questions concerning project management, ethical and social issues, etc., as important items that should be considered for inclusion in the capstone course. But not everyone who teaches one of the current set of designated capstone courses discusses these items. One possibility might be to have a single capstone course that in different offerings has different projects, but includes discussion of these items. Another alternative here might to have every capstone course include discussion of these items as part of the course. Again resource questions as well as scheduling issues are concerns that will have to be addressed.
   We will continue this discussion at the next meeting on Oct. 21.

The meeting adjourned at 9:30 am.

Next meeting: Oct. 21 at 8:30 a.m. in DL 698.

Minutes of the UGSC Meeting,
September 30

1. Enrollment trends: The GPA required for admission to the CSE/CIS majors has been reduced from a high of 3.2 in Au '02 to 3.1 for Wi '03, to 3.0 for Sp '03, to 2.8 since Su '03 in response to falling demand, from students, for the majors. We looked at the 4-quarter total of admits to the program over the last several quarters:
   

   Quarter	4-qtr admits	GPA cut-off
   Au 03	197	2.8
   Su 03	197	2.8
   Sp 03	163	3.0
   Wi 03	149	3.1
   Au 02	155	3.2
   Su 02	174	3.2
   Sp 02	220	3.2
   Wi 02	233	3.0
   Au 01	229	3.0
   Su 01	228	3.0
   Sp 01	235	3.0
   Wi 01	230	3.0
   Au 00	235	3.0
   Su 00	231	2.8
   Sp 00	231	2.8
   Wi 00	257	2.8
   Au 99	272	2.8
   Su 99	276	2.4
   Sp 99	251	2.4

   The steep decline we saw in Su '02 through Wi '03 seems to have leveled off. The 197 figure of Su '03 and Au '03 is almost exactly where we should be given our current faculty strength and the size of our grad program. Hence the committee decided not to recommend any changes in the cut-off GPA for now, and to revisit this early in the Winter quarter when the next set of numbers become available.

2. Nomination for CRA scholarships: The Computing Research Association has an annual competition for recognizing undergraduate students "who show outstanding research research potential in any area of computing research". Students are to be nominated by their departments; a department may nominate upto four students (two male, two female). According to the CRA brochure, two awards each of $1000 will be made, one to a male student, the other to a female student. Several other top students will receive honorable mention.

   The question was whether there were any candidates in the department that we should consider nominating. Our past experience with the CRA scholarships has not been very rewarding. We have nominated several students who we thought were highly qualified and, indeed, who fairly soon thereafter won prestigious awards such as the NSF grad fellowships; but they didn't even get Honorable mention in the CRA competition. Looking at the students who did win the competition, it seems only students who have published several research papers in fairly major conferences and/or journals stand a chance in this competition. If any student or faculty member knows of such students in our program (CIS or CSE), please send a brief email to Neelam (neelam@cis); otherwise, we will not nominate anyone.

3. Proposal for revision of the GEC program for engineering students (including CSE majors): The Core Committee, a subcommittee of the Engineering College's Committee on Academic Affairs (CCAA), has been looking at possible changes to the GEC program for engineering students. The Core Committee has produced a detailed proposal for changes. Individual departments have been asked to discuss and hopefully approve the proposal (by the end of October) before CCAA discusses it.

   UGSC had a fairly long discussion about the proposed changes. A number of questions were raised. As it turned out, later on the same day (Sept. 30), the Core Committee had a meeting. Neelam brought up UGSC's questions at that meeting. The following is a summary of our questions and the responses from the Core Committee:

   • Is there a list of courses that will be used for the category of "Ethics and professionalism"?
     The answer was not yet. It is expected that courses in the Communication dept., in the Philosophy dept., and some others will be on this list. The process for adding courses to the list is described in the full report (link above) (see Appendix 8, in particular pages App-23, 24). Also, this still needs to be approved by the rest of the university; and CCAA or CAA (the university Council on Academic Affairs) may well decide to set up an alternate mechanism (assuming any of this is approved).
     Discussions have been held with some depts (Philosophy, Communications, some others). The Communication dept. has written to the college that they would be able and willing to modify their course to meet these needs and also be able to increase their offerings to handle about 300 students. The college is waiting to hear from some other depts.

   • Is there any guarantee that the reduction in the no. of GEC hours won't be added to the major programs?
     No guarantee but it is the intention of this proposal that programs not do this. When we send our approval (assuming our faculty approves it), we can note that we strongly feel that reduction in the GEC hours should result in a corresponding reduction in the total hours of the programs.

   • Is it appropriate to use foreign language courses to substitute for two Soc. Sc. courses?
     The detailed recommendation is that a student who completes a foreign language *minor*, can use that to substitute upto two Soc. Sc. / Arts & Hum. courses. Otherwise, a student who completes one or more 104 level courses can only substitute one Soc. Sc. / Arts & Hum. course. Apparently, by the time you get to 104-level courses, the course is no longer just about the mechanics of language; instead, there is considerable discussion of the associated culture. And this is even more so for foreign language minors. That was why this recommendation was felt to be appropriate.

   • Is it appropriate to use a Univ. capstone course to substitute for a Soc. Sc. course?
     The university has guidelines for classifying a course as a univ. capstone course. In effect, these guidelines require the course to deal with diversity issues, the course must be interdisciplinary, etc. So it does seem appropriate to count such a course toward the Soc. Sc. requirement. (See Biology 597 for an example.)

   • The Core Committee discussion also noted that there is a proposed change in ISE 504 to expand it to a 5-credit course and to make it count as a GEC course in the Social Sciences category. But this proposal will probably be separated from the main GEC proposal and will be considered independently.

   There was an extended discussion among UGSC members via email following these clarifications from the Core Committee. A summary of this discussion:

   • If and when our department sends its approval for the proposed changes in the GEC, we should state that the proposed reduction in GEC hours should result in a corresponding reduction in hours to graduation; and that individual programs should not use this an opportunity to increase hours in the major.

   • The proposed 5-credit course on Ethics and Professionalism may be a bad idea if the course is taught by departments such as Communications or Philosophy (as is the current plan). Although increasing the focus on ethics and professionalism issues is a worthwhile idea, doing it in this fashion will be worse (or at least no better) than not doing anything. There is indeed potential for harm because there is a distinct possibility that such a course taught by a humanities department might mostly be an "exercise in techno-bashing".

     Moreover, 5-credit courses in general tend to be disliked by students and not have much more real content than 3 credit courses. Further, if it was a 3-credit course, someone would have to design such a course (rather than take an existing course and tweak it slightly as currently proposed) and it is more likely to meet the real needs of technical students, including discussions of practical issues such as recognizing the difference between sharp business practices and illegal dealings, rather than simply moral preaching.

     If no humanities departments are able or willing to develop such a course (or courses) then either the individual engineering programs and/or the college could try to develop such courses, assuming that the required resources are available. For example, again assuming availability of resources, we could convert our 601 into a 3-credit course and do a much more thorough job of presenting the material, as well as strengthening the course's communication components.

   • Many UGSC members had similar concerns about the proposed change of ISE 504 to a 5-credit course. The course already has the reputation of being mostly fluff and this change would likely make it worse.

4. There was no time to discuss the proposed "Graduation with Honors in Engineering". We will take it up in our next meeting.

The meeting adjourned at 9:30 am.

Next meeting: Oct. 14 at 8:30 a.m. in DL 698.