Back to Main College Council Page | Back to MCS Home Page

MCS College Council
February 12, 2004

In Attendance:
Amy Burkert
Michael DiPrima
Gregg Franklin
Rea Freeland
Fred Gilman
Eric Grotzinger
Elizabeth Jones
Paul Karol
Hyung Kim
Richard McCullough
Roy Nicolaides
Ksenija Simic Michael Widom


  1. Proposal to Introduce a Co-Calculus Course 21-106 (handout)

    The Department of Mathematical Sciences presented a proposal to introduce a "co-calculus" course to be taught concurrently with 21-120 in the first half of the fall semester. A growing number of incoming students have poor mathematical backgrounds, in particular in the areas of algebra and pre-calculus mathematics. Since this deficiency causes problems for these students not only in math courses, but in any quantitative course, the problem is considered to university wide. Although this deficiency is increasingly problematic, with the fall 2003 entering cohort showing a significant increase in the number students who scored poorly on the algebra portion of the placement test, standardized test scores and other measures indicate that the quality of student being admitted to Carnegie Mellon has remained the same.

    The proposal suggests a 2-unit, first half, fall mini course to be taken concurrently with 21-120. A successful score on the algebra portion of the placement test would be a prerequisite for completing a first semester science and engineering calculus course. Last semester, there were approximately 70 students who did NOT receive a successful score on this portion of the test.

    The course would focus on problem solving skills, basic algebra, and inequalities. The format would be two hours of lecture and two hours of lab per week. This would be a pass/fail course, with passing determined by passing another version of the algebra portion of the placement test. Tim Flaherty would be the instructor.

    CUA reviewed this proposal and had some reservations. Although they agreed that the problem is significant and needs to be addressed, there were concerns about scheduling, adding units to the course load of already struggling students, and the effect on morale. The original proposal was for a 6-unit course, so the current one reflects a significant decrease in additional units. It was suggested that a move to one recitation per week in the standard calculus course, with two recitations for weaker students, might provide a solution that would not require an increase in the overall load of units. However, the math department did not feel that this was feasible.

    Mike Diprima, the undergraduate representative on College Council, expressed concern that this type of course would decrease morale and cause problems for students who were placed in it. However, he did feel that recitation style courses would be much more effective than lectures in helping these students get up to speed. He suggested having a separate first course and pushing the final mini (21-123) into the first semester of sophomore year. However, this would not be feasible for some departments/colleges due to other constraints in their curricula.

    Ksenija Simic, the graduate student representative, has been a TA for math courses for several years. She felt that a move to one recitation per week was unrealistic and says that she has trouble covering all of the material in two sessions. She added that one of the problems with the existing structure is that there is a wide range of abilities among students in a given section. This makes it difficult to both help struggling students and provide interest for capable students.

    While everyone agreed that the deficiency in math skills of incoming students is a significant problem and requires some action, there was concern about whether this is the best way to remedy the situation. Comments from the group were as follows:
    • We should accept this proposal but agree to look at the existing curriculum.
    • We should look at the actual workload in addition to the number of assigned units.
    • A pre and post examination of the course should be conducted so we can measure whether it is successful.
    • This is a problem that also effects what we are able to offer the capable students and it is critical that we address it.
    • Is it possible to eliminate some of the students in this category by offering the online tutorials mentioned in their proposal prior to their matriculation at Carnegie Mellon? Would the possibility of having to take the additional course be a motivating factor?
    • We need to put a long-range review process in place. This problem is manifested in junior and senior physics majors as well.
    • The additional demand on already struggling students may be a cause for concern, but they definitely need help.
    • It is possible that the assignments could be designed in such a way as to make them beneficial, but not overly difficult or time consuming.
    • Architecture students will present a scheduling problem.
    • The effect of an additional "remedial" course ion student self-esteem could make the transition to college more difficult for these students.


    COLLEGE COUNCIL ACTION:
    The proposal was approved unanimously, coupled with a commitment to review the existing curricular load and to review and reassess the effect of the co-calculus course in January 2005.

  2. Faculty Feedback on Joint Appointments Proposal and Membership of Joint Committees (handout)
    Gregg Franklin presented an update on the proposed changes to the MCS faculty handbook regarding joint appointments. Feedback on the proposal has been received from faculty members in all four departments. There is particular concern for situations in which one department approves a candidate for joint appointment and the other does not.

    It was pointed out that joint appointments may be viewed more favorably by prospective graduate students than, for example, a courtesy appointment in the second department. However, it was also noted that the nature of the appointments is not evident in the directory.

    The discussion focused primarily on the last paragraph of the handout (copied below):

    Either after the department head meeting in the spring, or during the joint committee meeting after the department meetings in the fall, either department head may request conversion of the joint appointment to an appointment in a single department. If the candidate and Dean agree, the case will proceed as for a normal (non-joint) appointment and the case documentation will include only the recommendation of the department requesting conversion to a normal appointment.
    The group felt that the previous version gave too much power to the candidate, but that this one gives too much power to the department head. Fred Gilman suggested that we strike the first sentence and replace it with:
    If the candidate requests before review is due and the Dean and department heads agree, the case can proceed as a normal appointment in one department.
    In this scenario, the case would go back to the chosen department for review as a normal appointment. However, the group felt that this version did not give enough power to the department.

    The issue of how joint appointments are handled at other universities was raised. According to several members of the group, most universities do not offer joint appointments (for these reasons). The fact that Carnegie Mellon does offer them is a selling point for faculty members interested in interdisciplinary or cross-departmental work.

    COLLEGE COUNCIL ACTION:
    The policy is still being reviewed. No action was taken.