CSE Undergraduate Studies Committee
Minutes of Meetings (2012-'13)

The committee is looking for a CIS student representative. If you are a BS-CIS and are interested in being on the committee, please email neelam AT cse.

Spring:	(Meetings on Thursdays at 1:35pm-2:30 pm in DL 298.) Apr. 18; Apr. 4; Mar. 28; Feb. 14;
Fall:	(Meetings on Thursdays at 4:00pm-5:00 pm in DL 298.) Oct. 25; Oct. 11; Sept. 27; Sept. 13;

04/18/'13

Thanks to Paul Sivilotti for the detailed notes on the meeting.

1. POCAT for BS-CIS majors: The Advising Office will contact BS-CIS students scheduled to graduate in the Summer semester and arrange to have them take the POCAT. Since the number of these students will be relatively small, it should be possible to do this. And depending on how it goes, we will see how to do this in future semesters.

2. Applications to the major: Students applying this semester for admission (at the start of the Summer semester) to the major must meet a 2.5 GPA requirement. Previously, the GPA requirement was 2.0.

   This term there are about 250 applications. the major. Last term, we had 31 applications, and the previous term (summer) we had 135, for a 1-year total of about 415 applications. For the same 12-month period last year, we had a total of 297 applications. The year before that we had 273.

   Because of this dramatic increase (which is in line with national trends so it can be assumed not to be a one-time aberration) and because increases to the GPA cut-off require a 12-month notification period before taking effect, the cut-off has to be raised now in order to manage course enrollments. UGSC will probably meet again this semester to discuss this.

3. POCAT results: Performance on the Software I/II question varied greatly although the difference in the question was only one of notation. It appears that using the notation from the intro sequence (rather than from Math 366) helps in two ways: it is easier for students to understand the question and it prompts students to think in the context of a course that is more helpful for solving the problem.

   Performance on various versions of a Math 366 question involving quantification and predicates was poor.

   Performance on various versions of a database question was poor, despite the observation that students can do the same question well in the context of a final exam for the course.

   The recommendation was made to report the performance of each group of students on the set of questions that are identical amongst the different versions. That way it would be easier to calibrate whether difference in performance on other questions may be related to differences in the populations of students taking the different versions.

   With the new semesters curriculum, there are more "pick list" courses, meaning that more questions on the POCAT will be optional. The recommendation was made to divide the instrument into two parts: questions related to the core, and questions related to picklist courses and/or popular electives. Since every student must take at least one of two courses from a pick-list for each category (eg AI or graphics) it seems reasonable to group the questions the same way and request students answer at least one of two for each category.

   Going forward, assessment will also be required for our BS CIS and BA CIS programs. The recommendation was made to have a separate POCAT exam for the BA students since the core is different enough.

The meeting was adjourned at 2:30 pm.

Next meeting: ??

04/4/'13

1. Undergrad forum of March 5: The forum report is available here. The following items from the forum were discussed.

   Multiple junior project courses: There was a detailed discussion of the junior project courses. One important question that came up during our discussion was that of students taking multiple 390X courses and counting the additional courses (beyond the required one) toward their tech electives. While these additional courses would seem to be valuable, there was concern that allowing students 4 credits for such additional courses may be too much; or, more precisely, would reduce the breadth and depth that the tech electives are supposed to result in. One idea was that perhaps these additional courses should be allowed but each one should only be counted as *two* (rather than the nominal four) hours toward the TEs. This idea had been previously discussed during the semester transition but we had not put it into effect. The consensus in the committee was that we should do so. Neelam will ask for faculty approval by e-mail. (After the meeting, Neelam did send out a message about this to the faculty.)

   One problem that Nikki (who missed this part of the meeting) pointed out after the meeting was that DARS may not allow such splitting of hours. So if we want to do this, we will have to figure out some mechanism for implementing it, such as shadow courses.

   Capstone courses: The capstone courses under semesters seem to be going smoothly. The most popular one is 5911 (Software systems). The others are 5912 (Games), 5914 (Knowledge-based systems), and 5915 (Information systems). One course that is on the books is 5913 (Animation project); Rick Parent used to teach the course (682) under quarters but since he has retired, we did not offer it in '12-'13. It is not clear when and whether it will be offered again.

   Evening classes: One question that came up was the possibility of offering additional evening classes. We do offer evening sections of a number of our courses, mainly those that can be taught by outside instructors. Our fulltime faculty, for the most part, do not want to teach evening courses. Because of this, and because of the relatively small percentage of students who work fulltime and can take only evening courses, we will probably not consider expanding our evening offerings.

   Facilities: Several students at the forum expressed concern about the computing facilities. The main computing labs (in Caldwell) are apparently often overcrowded. Moreover, they are in the middle of the building with no outside walls/windows. The lab in Baker 310 is somewhat better but is used mostly for the service courses for business majors. Room 174 in Dreese is available to CIS and CSE majors but it is relatively small and usually quite crowded. Compared to the facilities that, for example, ME students have, ours are really quite terrible. It was not clear how to address this problem. One idea was to try to persuade some company such as Microsoft or Google to contribute toward improving the existing facilities. While this would help, there doesn't seem to be a good solution for the underlying basic problem which is that the facilities are much too small given our student population (including the students who take the service courses). We should work with the college to identify additional spaces. (One suggestion was, maybe we should try to get some space in Koffolt Lab when Chemical Engineering moves to its new building (being currently built) ...

The meeting was adjourned at 2:30 pm.

Next meeting: ??

03/28/'13

1. BS in Data Analytics: A number of people in OSU's higher administration are very interested in starting an undergrad program in Data Analytics as soon as possible. They want the program to start as early as Au '13. Hence we have been under pressure from the College of Engineering to develop such a program as soon as possible. Since offering a new program in engineering will take quite a bit of time and will involve accreditation considerations, etc., the plan is to try to develop such a program in ASC. This also makes sense since Statistics, which is in ASC, would be an important player in such a program.

   Srini and others have been working on developing such a program. The CS portion of the program would be similar to our major program but will be lighter. Specifically, the required courses would be Software I, II; Foundations I; Systems I; Databases I, II; Data mining; and Professionalism and ethics. A number of statistics courses (still being discussed, and yet to be developed) will be required. In addition, 12 hours of tech electives (combination of CS and stats courses) will be required. Some suggested "tech elective tracks" will use the tech elective hours to strengthen the CS portion.

   The consensus in the committee was that this was a reasonable program to develop/offer. But the program is not yet ready for approval by faculty. For one thing, the stats courses still need to be developed. For another, the question of vwhere students will be "housed" (in the CSE Dept., in the Stats Dept., or in both and if so how) needs to be discussed. When some of these details have been worked out, Srini will come back to the committee for one more discussion.

The meeting was adjourned at 2:20 pm.

Next meeting: ??

02/14/'13

1. Enrollments: We briefly looked at the number of students admitted to the CSE/CIS majors. Because of the recent switch to semesters, it is somewhat difficult to compare the recent admit figures with figures from when we were on quarters. But all indications including, especially, the very large recent/current enrollments in Software I, suggest that the number of students interested in the CSE/CIS majors will continue to greatly exceed our capacity. Further, the 2.5 GPA requirement for admission to the major went into effect only for this semester. The result of that requirement should be reflected in the number of students who are admitted this semester. Hence we will revisit this issue later in the semester when those figures are available.
2. Annual forum: We decided to hold the Annual Forum on the evening of Tuesday, March 5 at 5:30-6:30 pm. Place to be announced. The Advising Office will send out annoucements to all undergrads inviting them to the forum. Several of the UGSC members are expected to attend.
3. POCAT: The POCAT for this semester will be held in three sessions, the first being on Feb. 18. About 80+ CSE students are expected to take the test. We will (again) discuss how to arrange for CIS majors to take the test as well.
4. Music Technology Program: The Music Dept. has contacted us about the possibility of creating a Music Technology Major that will include a number of CSE courses. They expect about 5-10 students per year in the propposed major. A key concern, of course, is room for these students in our courses; since some CSE courses will be required for these students, we will have to treat them in the same way as we treat ECE students in courses that are required for those students. Since the numbers are expected to be very small, we hope the problem will not be too severe. The proposal is still in the discussion stage.

The meeting was adjourned at 2:20 pm.

Next meeting: ??

10/25/'12

1. Peg is retiring!: We thanked Peg for her many years of dedicated service to the undergrad program and wished her well in retirement!

2. 425X courses for CIS minors: CIS minors are required to complete 6 cr-hrs of elective courses. The 1-cr-hr language courses (425X) may be included among these. The question was, should there be a limit on the number of these courses that may be included in the 6 hours? After a brief discussion, the committee approved a limit of 2 cr-hrs.

3. Limit on transfer credit hours: Some students who transfer to OSU from other universities come in with many CSE transfer-credit-hours. The question was whether we should limit the number of such hours that may be included in the student's major program. ECE has a requirement that no more than 50% of a student's major program may consist of transfer credits. This seems like a reasonable requirement but it is not clear whether we need to actually make such a policy because we may not have any student who comes close to the 50% limit. We will discuss this further after getting data on this point.

4. POCAT for CIS majors: We need to start having BS-CIS students also take the POCAT since the university now requires all undergrad programs to have assessments similar to what we have for BS-CSE and we had proposed using POCAT as the main assessment tool, as it is for BS-CSE. But BS-CIS majors don't apply for graduation until just two-three weeks before graduation (unlike BS-CSE students who apply a semester before graduation) so it would be difficult to scheduled it on the basis of their graduation application. So we are considering alternatives to this. One approach would be to contact all BS-CIS majors who have completed a certain number of their CSE credit hours and ask them to sign up for the POCAT during the next semester. We will see if the mechanics for this can be worked out.

5. CSE Alum Survey results: The results of the most recent CSE alum survey (conducted in Spring '12) are available on-line. Overall, the results were similar to previous years' results with no major surprises. Students seem mostly satisfied with the program. The one common suggestion for change, as in previous years, was to add "more practical" topics/activities to the program.

The meeting was adjourned at 5 pm.

Next meeting: ??

10/11/'12

1. Tech electives: (Continuing the discussion from the meeting of 9/27 - see below): With respect to the 6000-level courses, we decided to leave things where they are for now with the hope that grad school will revise its policy about not allowing undergrads to register for 6000-level courses.

   The document at http://www.cse.ohio-state.edu/ugrad/techelecoptions.shtml provides some useful information that students can use to select their tech elective courses. But it needs considerable revision and 6000-level courses need to be included (with the caution that students may have to go through an elaborate process to register for those courses). We will work on this.

2. POCAT: For this semester, about 60 CSE graduating seniors are expected to take POCAT. We will use the same approach as in Spring: three slightly different versions of the test used for roughly 20 students each. We did not have time to discuss how (and whether) to start administering the test for CIS majors; we need to do that shortly. One problem is that those students don't file for graduation until fairly late in the term that they plan to graduate in; and there may be no time at that point for them to take the test. This needs further discussion.

The meeting was adjourned at 5:00

Next meeting: Oct 25.

09/27/'12

1. Non-CSE courses as tech electives for BS-CSE and BS-CIS majors: The semester programs require BS-CSE and BS-CIS students to have 15 cr hours of tech electives of which 8 hours must be CSE courses (3000-level and above), the remaining 7 hours being an appropriate mix of CSE courses and non-CSE courses. The concern is that students may interpret this to mean that up to 7 hours of the tech electives may consist of any random set of non-CSE courses.
   There is a similar, indeed potentially more serious, situation in the BA-CIS program which requires students to complete 18 cr hours of a related (non-CS) field with an additional up to 8 cr hours of the related field being allowed to be counted as electives. A document (mostly prepared by Eric) provides suitable guidance to students to ensure that these credit are chosen appropriately and are not a random collection of courses. It was suggested that a similar document be prepared for use by BS-CSE and BS-CIS majors concerning the 7 cr hours of tech electives that may include non-CSE courses. We will work on preparing such a document.
2. 6000-level courses as tech electives: Historically, a number of our high-ability undergrad students have taken ouor grad courses, including grad core courses. On the average, these students have done as well or better than our average graduate students in these courses.
   In the transition to semesters, the grad courses were assigned 6000-level numbers. This is a problem for said undergrads since undergrads are not allowed to directly register for 6000-level courses and have to go through a petition process involving not just permission from the instructor but also approval by the grad school. (They may also have to pay "grad tuition" for the course although this is not yet clear.) Further, the students do not see the course listed in BuckeyeLink unless they specifically search for "graduate career" courses.
   This issue was discussed during the semester transition and some faculty involved with the courses felt, at that time, that this situation had some advantages because it would ensure that ill-prepared undergrad students don't end up in those courses. But the problem is that it affects not just the ill-prepared students but also the high-ability students who typically are the ones interestsed in these courses.
   After some discussion, the following was proposed: A new number, something like 5788, be identified and corresponding to the various 6000-level course that would seem appropriate for high-ability undergrad students, a series of courses numbered 5788.11, 5788.12, etc. be created. The title of each of these courses would be the same as that of the corresponding 6000-level course. The description may include an additional note that the course is mainly meant for graduate students; and that high-ability undergrads with particular interest in the topic may want to consider it after consultation with their advisors and the faculty member teaching the course. The enrollment limit for the course would be set at 0 so that no undergrad can actually directly enroll in it. If an undergrad tries to enroll in it, he will get added to the waitlist. The Advising Office would then direct the student to consult with the student's advisor and the faculty member teaching the course. If the faculty member agrees that the student may benefit by taking the course, he/she would send a note to the Advising Office and the Adv. Office would then add the student to the course. What this would do is to avoid having to go to the grad school each time an undergrad student wants to take one of these courses. But it would still ensure that permission from the faculty member teaching the course is obtained before the undergrad student is enrolled in the course.
   There were also some concerns about this approach. First, will grad school actually require these students to pay additional tuition? Second, is it really difficult for undergrads to get grad school permission to enroll in 6000-level courses? And if, in fact, it is difficult to get this permission, may be if we keep sending them students, perhaps grad school will finally come to realize that may be forbidding undergrads from 6000-level courses is not such a good idea and will allow us to open those courses to undergrads. That, of course, would be ideal ...Or, more proactively, we (UGSC/the dept.) could write to the grad school arguing that undergrads should be allowed to take 6000-level courses and that there is no sense in having just 5000 as the only level for both grads and undergrads and reserving 6000-9999 as grad only.
   

The meeting was adjourned at 5 pm.

Next meeting: ??

09/13/'12

1. GET program: GET ("global enterprise technologies") is a program supported by some major companies such as JP Morgan-Chase and Nationwide. It started at Syracuse and the Univ. of Delaware. It has been offered at OSU for a couple of years.

   Briefly, the program works as follows: It consists of a set of four courses offered in an intensive manner over a period of 8-10 days at the start of Spring semester (i.e., early January) in a residential setting. The topics for the courses are: Effective communication' IT enabled innovation and change; Enterprises system strategy and architecture; Professional experiences in GET. Senior CIS and CSE students have to apply for admission to the program, the minimum requirements being a 3.0 gpa. They also have to be interviewed by one more of the companies in GET and be accepted as interns. Following the intensive courses at the start of the semester, students spend the rest of the semester as full-time interns at the company. Students register as full-time (12 cr hrs) students at OSU (and OSU reimburses Syracuse for the tuition money), these being independent study hours with Rajiv. Roughly 4-6 OSU students successfully complete the program each year.

   Under the quarter system, students who satisfactorily completed the program were allowed to count it as 9 cr hrs toward their tech electives. The question was, how the program should be treated under semesters. The following was proposed: students who complete the program satisfactorily should be allowed to count it for 6 cr hrs toward their tech electives; of these 6 hours, 2 hours will be counted as "CSE hours", the remaining will be counted as "non-CSE hours"; hence these students will have to complete 9 more hours of tech electives of which at least 6 hours must be CSE courses. (Recall that both CSE and CIS students are required to complete 15 hours of tech elective courses of which at least 8 must be CSE courses, the remaining being a mix of CSE and non-CSE courses approved by the advisor.)

   After a brief discussion, the proposal was approved. Rajiv was asked to give a report to the committee at the end of year to keep us updated on how it was functioning.

The meeting was adjourned at 5 pm.

Next meeting: Sept. 27.