MCS College Council
Minutes for meeting of Thursday, October 17, 1996

1.  PROPOSED MATHEMATICS COURSES. (J. Greenberg)

21-634 Numerical Methods for Engineers
This course is targeted to an audience of mechanical engineering
graduate students and has been taught by Mechanical Engineering.  This
fall Mathematical Sciences is teaching the precursor to the course. 
Although the precursor is cross-listed with course numbers from both
Math and Mechanical Engineering, 32 of the 35 students are registered
for the engineering number.  For the new course, Math has an agreement
that students will register for the Math number (21-634).

We discussed whether this course would be appropriate for, say, a
graduate student in Physics.  Although the course is open to students
other than mechanical engineers, there probably are other courses that
would serve them better.  Susan Henry asked that Math add a sentence
indicating this; for instance, "This course is open to all students but
has been designed to serve graduate students in Mechanical Engineering."

As a broader issue, Susan Henry recommended that departments consider
adding sentences like this to all course descriptions (graduate and
undergraduate), briefly giving the philosophical slant or targeted
audience of each course.  This could provide more guidance for students
selecting courses, which is of particular concern as we move to a system
of on-line registration.  These kinds of statements could also
discourage "over-qualified" students from registering for courses
inappropriate for their level of knowledge.

21-691 Topics in Optimization
This course will follow a course being taught this fall by Reha Tutuncu.

21-270 Analysis IV
This course provides an alternative for students in the honors math
sequence, who in the past have taken Set Theory.  It's an enriched
version of (and substitute for) 21-260 Differential Equations.

COLLEGE COUNCIL ACTION:  All three courses were approved unanimously.

OTHER ACTION:  Eric Grotzinger and the MCS Advisory Group will discuss
modifying course descriptions to include brief statements of
intent/audience as guides for students selecting courses.


2.  PROPOSED PHYSICS COURSES. (R. Swendsen)

33-788 Special Topics in Astrophysics
This course has a primary audience of second year physics graduate
students - not because of prerequisites, but rather because the second
year is when students have room in their curriculum.

Because astrophysics is attracting more and more interest, Susan Henry
asked that a sentence be added to the course description explaining that
although the course has no prerequisites and is open to all students, it
is designed for physics graduate students - implying a level of
sophistication that might make it inappropriate for some students.  As
in the discussion above, a statement like this would provide some
guidance for students selecting courses, though it doesn't change the
description or content of the course itself (or College Council's
approval of it).

33-996 Practicum in Physics
This course offers foreign students the opportunity to get experience by
working with a company.  Without a course number, they would not be able
to participate in this training due to visa restrictions.  Physics
modeled this after the practicum offered in CIT.  Susan Henry suggested
that other departments should consider this model as well.

COLLEGE COUNCIL ACTION:  Both courses were approved unanimously.


3.  ELECTRONIC GRADING. (E. Grotzinger)

Currently when faculty use grade scanner sheets to submit grades, the
scanner sheets are still being sent to Pitt to be processed - a slow and
costly process.  The university is now piloting an electronic means for
submitting grades; about 14 MCS faculty are participating this fall.

We'd like to promote use of electronic grades for the spring semester. 
Susan Henry suggested that departments invite their faculty who are
currently using the system to explain and promote it to their
colleagues.  In addition, there was discussion at Academic Council about
providing training for teaching assistants and staff members as well as
faculty to make it easier for all courses to use this system.

Amy Kennedy and David Owen pointed out that after the initial call for
volunteers last year, no further information has been provided about
electronic grades.  Even though this is in the pilot stage, expanding
the user base would be a good step.  Amy suggested adding text to the
grading sheets telling faculty how they could participate in the
electronic grades program next time.

The issue of security was raised.

COLLEGE COUNCIL ACTION: No vote - informational only.

OTHER ACTION:
- Eric Grotzinger will contact Bill Elliott about promoting the
electronic option on the paper grade sheets.

- Department heads will promote electronic grading among their faculty,
inviting currently participating faculty members to help explain what's
involved.


4. DEFINITION OF TEACHING. (I. Fonseca)

This discussion came out of the current round of promotions cases.  As
the committees have been considering teaching responsibilities -
particularly for the new lecturer track - there is some confusion about
what is considered "teaching".  The university defines teaching much
more broadly than just instructing students in a classroom.  The
university's definition includes all activities that promote student
education, including sponsoring undergraduate research, advising
students, acting as a mentor, participating in curriculum design.

Irene Fonseca found that all of this information already exists in the
current MCS Faculty Handbook.  However, it is not organized in a way
that makes it easy to refer to such a definition of teaching, and there
are no pointers to this information when the term comes up throughout
the handbook, especially regarding the promotions decisions.

Irene has reorganized this information into one section of the handbook,
and she proposed including footnotes in the handbook that point back to
this section.  Susan Henry asked that this section include items about
advising and mentoring activities and about sponsoring undergraduate
research.  She also asked that the term "advising" be replaced with
"advising and mentoring" throughout.

We had discussion on whether the term "teaching" as it applies to the
criteria for the Julius Ashkin Teaching Award should have a pointer to
this section on the broader definition of teaching; since a separate
award for advising exists, is it appropriate to include advising in the
Ashkin Award selection?  Susan Henry pointed out that awards for
advising exist outside the college, and that MCS has only the Ashkin
Award.  By defining it broadly here, the selection committee can
consider all facets.

We agreed that since these changes to the handbook merely clarify
information that was already there, the proposals do not have to be
taken before the faculty for approval.

Amy Kennedy brought up the concern that many special faculty are unaware
of how the Q review process works - or even that they are required to
undergo Q review.  Susan Henry said that this is actually a broader
issue in terms of developing faculty through mentoring and full
understanding of the review processes.  She said that it will be
considered on a university level at some time, and that we can start
discussion within in MCS at a department heads meeting.

Bill Brown suggested that a set of guidelines be created giving
explanations of all the titles in each track as well as pointers to the
Faculty Handbook for information on the review process for each one. 
Susan asked that Irene put together a small ad hoc committee to work
with her to develop an explanatory insert for the offer letters for
special faculty.  This insert should state explicitly in non-legalistic
terms what review process applies to the addressee.  Since the triennial
review is coming up next year, this is a good time to examine this issue.

We discussed the concern that as teaching is more consistently
recognized as including educational activities like advising and
research sponsorship, some people in the special faculty track (e.g.,
research biologists) who wouldn't otherwise have been submitted to an
evaluation may now need to go through Q review because of this
definition of teaching.  Conversely, people may now have incentive to
expand their educational activities if it seems like a positive career
step (as measured by the Q review).  Further discussion and definitions
are needed to be consistent throughout MCS.

COLLEGE COUNCIL ACTION:  The modifications to the MCS Faculty Handbook
were approved unanimously.

OTHER ACTION:
- Irene Fonseca will form an ad hoc committee to develop an insert for
special faculty appointment letters.  This committee will include
representatives from each department; Amy Kennedy and Ursula Hanff
agreed to serve.

- At a future meeting the department heads will discuss 1) how to
promote the development of faculty through better understanding of the
promotions and review processes, and 2) how to define the point at
which, say, a post-doc position evolves into a position requiring Q
review due to the broad definition of teaching duties.