Changing the Computer Science Graduate Curriculum
Summary of Individual Interviews with Computer Science Faculty and Graduate Students Concerning Perceived Problems with the Graduate Curriculum
(Version 1.0)
Interviewer: Maletic
Faculty Interviewed: Batcher, Breitbard, Dragan, Khan, Lu, Melton, Nesterenko, Peyarvi, Rothstein, Ruttan, Volkert
Faculty on Leave: Farrell (emailed comments), Potter (did not respond to email), Wang (emailed comments)
Faculty Not Interviewed: Baker, Walker (both involved in all meetings and made numerous specific suggestions)
This is a summary of individual interviews of CS faculty. The interviews focused on uncovering perceived problems with the graduate curriculum. While a small number of solutions were suggested, most comments focused on problems or general goals and guidelines that the particular faculty member felt important to the Department. Below is a summary of approximately 16 pages hand-written notes. Additionally, a group of graduate students (approximately 8) gave input during a called meeting. The students present represented a cross section of the graduate student body, but for the most part, advanced Doctoral students gave the bulk of the comments. It was a very useful meeting and a great many good comments emerged.
Student Comments:
o Faculty take too long to grade qualifiers (is this indicative of the faculty’s view of the exams?)
o Why four qualifier exams?
o Too much depth in qualifiers
o Would like to see more consistent grading of qualifier exams
o Would like courses and qualifiers de-coupled
o They have to take the course at the right time or else they don’t know what will be on the test
o Would like consistent guidelines for qualifier exams
o Eight (8) credits are required for GAs – this is a huge burden on students (3 courses) when combined with teaching. Many other departments have 4 credit hour courses.
o Would like to see sequences of courses: (for example: OS 1, 2, and 3) in all research areas
o Need more course offerings – “What else do I take?” Many students have taken all of our offerings with many credit hours remaining, and few if any interesting courses.
o Avoid trendy course
o Would like to see an “Intro to Graduate Studies in CS”
o Would like to see more graduate student presentations
o Students complained about a serious lack of quality in some M.S. Thesis (specifics were given)
o Students complained about non Graduate Faculty directing M.S. Thesis (with the result being low quality) – “I worked really hard on my Thesis and people are getting credit for really poor quality work”
o Students would like faculty to be more visible
o Students would like more departmental activities tied to the educational process: Faculty presentations, Lab open house, etc. “I don’t know what other Faculty in the department are doing [besides my advisor].”
o Dissertations and Thesis should result in publications (external measure of quality)
o Would like to see “publishing” as a more explicit component of the program
Faculty Comments:
1. Entrance requirements
o Should integrate with our undergraduate program (some question to the current state of this)
o Should allow students with B.S. and M.S. from local Universities (e.g., Akron, CSU) to enter our program without great difficulty
o What about other schools with (very) different MS program, they end up taking a large number of courses in our M.S. program
2. Advisor assignment and Plan of work (both Ph.D. and Masters)
o Need a more formal process for graduate advising.
o Need a graduate secretary
o There should be a required form for advisor and change of advisor form, this will help give a history of the student and support other matters.
o A formal Plan of Work (form) should be required by a given date. This must be signed by the advisor, and keep updated
3. Required course work (and course offerings)
o A very serious lack of course offerings
o A lack of depth of material (course sequences)
o A lack of new topics (special topics)
o Inability of faculty to support their research through course offering
o Students are taking the required courses (for the qualifiers) instead of advanced topics, there are too many required courses
o Limit number of research credits
o Need to make PhD students take more courses to support advance offering
o Faculty need to be able to teach at least one research course a year
o Could co-ops be part of the program?
o Possible abuse of practical training
o We don’t keep up with the times
o Rotation schedule constrains our offerings in a negative manner
o Too many 50K and not enough 70K courses
4. M.S. Thesis, M.A. exit requirements
o Quality of M.S. Thesis is low in some cases, this reflect poorly on entire faculty
o Many people want to avoid producing too many M.A. degrees
o Overall most people felt M.A. was necessary (for industry people, inter-disciplinary programs, etc)
o Build a more industry track MA program
o M.A. could be a project (light weight Thesis) and presentation (Pass/Fail)
o Problem with reforming committee at last min.
5. Qualifier/Entrance examination
o Need to be more flexible
o Support all faculty equally
o Tied too closely with courses (that do not support research)
o Takes far too long to complete exams for students
o Content (level of depth) and grading is uneven for exams
o Too much of a burden on specific faculty, hard to grade
o Lack basics (Theory and Algorithms)
o Exams recover course work
o Exams are currently depth, not breadth (breadth is a little about a lot, depth is lots about one thing)
o The level of the exams should be more closely tied to basic concepts at a lower level
o Two goals: trying to be PhD entrance and MA exit
o Two (other) goals: Depth and Breadth
o Not all students may need to take exams??
o Qualifiers should be one term and basic knowledge
6. Candidacy Examination and Prospectus
o This should be the place that depth in the research field (and closely related topics) be checked
o Could be made a bit more formal with regards to exam aspect
o They may not be very consistent? a better description may be in order?
7. Dissertation Defense
o No one perceived problems with the defense process
o Committee selection process
8. General Comments
o Qualifiers currently dictate entire program
o The program must better support (faculty) research programs
o Need to make researching, publishing, and presenting an explicit part of the program
o Get rid of 4/50000 splits – Goals of teaching Grad vs UG is too great
o Not enough in depth course offerings to educate Ph.D. students and support research areas
o Courses should support depth of study in particular research areas
o
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related download
- computer science in elementary and secondary schools
- new faculty at west lafayette fall 2020 purdue university
- ndsu department of computer science and
- africa regional scholarship and innovation fund for
- ronald l danielson
- changing the computer science graduate curriculum
- new faculty at west lafayette purdue university
Related searches
- igcse computer science workbooks pdf
- igcse computer science workbook
- igcse computer science workbook answer
- igcse computer science coursebook pdf
- computer science people
- what is computer science like
- computer science revision
- changing the school system essay
- computer science graduate salary
- best data science graduate programs
- changing the limits of integration
- computer science curriculum k 8