Difference: BrownBagLuncheons (1 vs. 14)

• • Carl Weiman's CWSEI initiative (~13)
  • grad student PGS and UGF procedures and feedback (~10)
  • postdoc issues (~8)
  • search for new ICICS director (*~4)
  • e-games in the curriculum (~3)
  • strategy for relationships with Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, Intel, ... (~2)
  • our response to sustainability (~2)
  • Open Media Environment (~1)
• Discussion: CWSEI
  • Son led off by identifying this as a good opportunity and later encouraged us to "go for it". Tamara countered why do this? (We are too busy already, we have bigger problems facing us, and this will push us too far.)
  • This was tempered by concerns about being first (Holger), who will do it (Nando), who will lead it (Joanna), whether we understand the rules and constraints (Raymond), how well we fit the vision that Weiman has (Gregor), whether that vision is believable or naive (Kevin L-B), and whether we have things we want to do that this will fund (Jim L).
  • Michiel raised the question "what do we want to accomplish" and expressed the hope that this would be more than just bigger and better 1st year courses, but rather engaging students to approach learning differently.
  • Early on Alla called for straw vote of interest: 4 were enthusiastic, 4 were opposed, and everyone else was undecided.
  • David P said "there must be a better way to teach!" but wondered if this was the way to find it.
  • Mark asked what the instructors think. Paul responded that we need to look at a number of things in our curriculum and this may be a good way to get some help. Later, Donald noted that not everyone in the department needs to be an active player, but we do all have to support an initiative if we launch one, and Mark said we seem not to be too enthusiastic.
  • Bill took a double shot to note that all the instructors he has spoken to are positive. He then summarized his conversations with Weiman, and said that preparing a proposal would not be difficult and he felt there was a large design space, that the goal is not restricted to just what happens lectures but rather more about changing how students think about science and how they think about learning about science. In response to a question, he said that what we want to change is how students spend their time outside lecture, when they should be putting in intensive effort understanding concepts. He closed with the advice that we should understand what we want to accomplish before submitting a proposal.
  • In three installments Kelly suggested there are advantages to applying in the first round, realistically much of the effort would be done by instructors and a few senior faculty (usually not pre-tenure faculty who have other priorities), and that there are risks involved so we ought to think about what those are. Norm emphasized that although this is a five-year program, he thinks it likely that all of the funds will be committed within six months.
• Discussion: NSERC PGS and UBC UGF applications (process and feedback)
  • Alla led off the discussion saying she feels we have a poorly understood process, with little or no feedback to guide faculty or grad students in deciding whether they should apply or how to make their applications successful. She contrasted this with the situation for grant applications, where we seem to have better mechanisms for mentoring those who are applying for the first time and a better understanding of what success rates are. This was echoed by a number of other people(Kelly, Holger, Joanna).
  • David P said students do get feedback about how far their application gets in the process. It was noted that this would be useful to provide to faculty as well.
  • Apparently the process for NSERC PDF applications has changed. These now go straight to NSERC and are not evaluated by UBC.
  • Discussion ensued about how well our departmental rankings correlated with UBC rankings and subsequent success rates at the NSERC level. The belief is that UBC rankings are consistent with NSERC awards, but our rankings may not be in line with how UBC subsequently ranks applications, but we do not know and perhaps should investigate this.

Notes 2006/10/05

• Proposed topics
  • TBD
• Discussion: TBD

Notes 2006/05/04

• Proposed topics
  • Direct cost of research recovery (~13)
  • Reboot Cafe closure, offerings (~8)
  • Breadth requirement (~6)
• Discussion: Direct cost of research recovery
  • Gregor outlined plans by Finance and Faculty Affairs Ctees to change charge to flat rate (~8.4%), with no exemptions. Rationale is accounting transparency, process simplification.
  • Various people (including Alan H, Holger, Kevin LB) raised concerns about implications for junior faculty. There were also some questions about how valid/important a rationale accounting simplification is. Holger suggested different rates based on seniority to offset imbalances caused by loss of exemption.
  • Tamara pointed out that junior is not equivalent with low grant income.
  • Bill and Alan M emphasised need for transparency and simplicity of scheme. Bill mentioned phone call to NSERC, which apparently raised some flags. Bill and Kelly pointed out that exact accounting for direct cost of research is impractical.
  • Some discussion on how our policies should reflect our values; differing opinions on whether helping out junior/low-grant-income faculty should solely be supported on a peer-to-peer or within-research-group basis, or by the department as a whole.
  • Some discussion on whether and how charge could be paid from grants selected by faculty (by billing them). Kelly voiced strong need for such a scheme. (This discussion was taken offline after while, since it appeared to not be generally seen as a problem.)
  • Discussion ended when no further contributions were made.
• Tamara asked for vote on whether next topic on the list (Reboot Cafe) should be discussed, or meeting should be ended early. The latter was decided (~6:0 vote.)
• Adjourned.

• • Sample midterm questionnaires were cited as possible templates; these were also found useful for informal instructor evaluations (see, for example, the questionnaire from Holger's CPSC 445, which is partially based on ideas from the official Women's Studies instructor evaluation form)

• Proposed topics
  • Cheating - better prevention, making prosecution less time consuming (6)
  • Graduate fellowships (dept. level nominations) - criteria? transparency (3)
  • TA work ethic (24)
  • What should we teach in 1st year? (9)
  • UBC plans re: interdisciplinarity (5)
  • Honorary Doctorates candidates?
  • Group Assistant's role (2)
  • Search for a new Dean -- any suggestions/concerns?
  • Work life balance (1)
• Discussion: TA work ethic
  • frustration expressed with TAs (other than when markers)
    • asking for things, not done
    • availability at start of term
    • TA work seems at bottom of grad student priority list
  • potential to poison collegiality (since TAs typically also members of research group)
  • it's a structural problem (in the way TAs assigned/evaluated)
  • Question: Do TA evaluations need to be confidential (or can the information be shared)?
  • Question: Our guarantee of financial support to grad students - what does it actually mean?
  • (Partial) answer: (revised) letter to grad students emphasizing:
    • priority of assigned TA duties
    • dates of work (start/end of term)
    • 12 hrs/wk is an average (some weeks more, some weeks less)
  • (Partial) answer (cont'd): will emphasize above at grad student orientation
  • Assoc Head has met with bottom 13 TAs (based on term 1 scores) but only after evaluations received in March
  • CSGSA and TA union both comfortable with scenario whereby poor evaluation results in warning and, if insufficient improvement, no more TAing
  • Idea: create informal midterm TA evaluation
  • Comment: TA training (early Sept) not as valuable as it might be since grad students don't yet know the nature of their TA job
  • Idea: better/more instructor evaluation of TAs
  • Comment: TA coordinator has 1st draft of evaluation form instructors can use
  • Question: What do you do with a really bad TA (at the time the problem is occuring)?
  • Question (again): May instructors see TA evaluation forms? Is this allowed or are they confidential?
  • Question (again): May instructors run their own TA evaluations midway through the course?
  • Assoc Head indicated he did not know the formal answers but would find out
  • Comment: TAs seem reluctant to answer questions on course bulletin boards/newsgroups
  • Idea: collect best practices guidelines (to pass on to faculty at start of each term)
  • Best practices include regular (weekly) meetings with TAs to assign/stress specific responsibilities
  • Sample midterm questionnaires were cited as possible templates -- one from Gregor another from Womens Studies
  • A (positive) story was told of a poor TA who improved to become a TA teaching award winner and eventual faculty member
  • A straw poll revealed that most faculty members held regular TA meetings
  • Frustration was expressed at TAs who say "I can't make it" -- What do we do?
  • Assoc Head affirmed that scheduled TA meeting has priority
  • Comment: A case was cited in which all assigned TAs had a conflict with a given course responsibility
    • need policy?
  • Comment: TAs sometimes don't know material (in upper level courses). This creates additional work/responsibility for instructor to:
    • prepare tutorial material
    • provide answers, complete marking schemes, etc.
  • Assoc Head: TA assignments a challenge
    • Instructor can require TA to attend class (as billable hours)
    • Dept willing to take instructor requests/recommendations into account in TA assignment
  • Comment: There are other "design spaces"
    • have incoming grad students RA first, TA later
    • there is a mixed message currently in which grad students "graduate" from TA to RA
  • ASIDE: Any "firing" of a TA should not facilitate this transition/graduation
  • Comment: It should be made clear that everything a grad student does enters into the overall recommendation letters we write
    • It is appropriate for a grad student's supervisor to know if there is a TAing problem
  • Comment: Our best M.Sc/Ph.D students win fellowships and don't TA
    • this is bad for us and bad for them
  • Comment (against the RA first notion): One faculty member expressed unwillingness to spend research dollars on unknown students with unknown skills
  • Comment: We need to make TA more like a job than an entitlement. In particular,
    • don't pay for time TAs arrive late (at start of term) or leave early (at end of term)
  • Comment: In the past few years, entering grad class large
    • this is anomalous
    • more senior grads will be TAs in future
  • Comment: Good experiences were noted with
    • a mix of experienced and junior TAs
    • senior hourly TAs
  • Comment: Hourly TAs are competitive positions. Thus, "we select good ones"
  • Idea: Ask all TAs to complete regular time sheets
  • Comment (again): Make sure TAs understand TA is a job. Make sure language in letters students get is strong.
  • Comment: One faculty member indicated that all her TAs are asked to track hours weekly so that
    • hours worked can ge compared with estimates
    • future course activities can be planned
  • Assoc Head: We need to be clear with TAs about our expections
  • Caution: Be careful how you word things with TAs. If you say, "all you'll be doing is the labs" then expect to be held to this

Notes 2006/04/06

[coming soon]

Notes 2006/03/02

[coming soon]

• • It's ethically okay to say yes, I will agree to be your supervisor, but I can't fund you (~14 students will be funded through other sources - see more recent e-mail about exactly how this will work)

Notes 2006/02/02

• Discussion: CS is excluded from NSERC Strategic Grant Programme

notes 2006/02/02

• Proposed topics
  • How do little kids learn to program? How can we help? (3)
  • Should CPSC run service courses for other departments? (4)
  • CS is excluded from NSERC Strategic (9)
  • Graduate student supervision and funding (students are looking for supervision and advisors are too poor (9)
• Discussion: CS is excluded from NSERC Strategic
  • Irritating because it requires less industrial matching than many other Canadian sources
  • Strategic grants have very specific funding areas, these topics are not right for CS
  • Is there any way that we can lobby this? Does anyone know how to influence it? (Discussion that the right people weren't in the room)
  • There was a fair amount of confusion over how strictly or loosely to interpret the rules
  • Need to figure out the ropes for courting local industry (suggested that this should be handled by the Faculty Affairs Committee)
  • RTIs and CPI are a problem because low cost computers are too cheap to be applied for, and yet they're what we need for equipment
  • The Idea to Innovation program from NSERC may be a way to work with local industry without requiring industrial money
• Graduate student supervision and funding
  • 2 halves of the problem: how do you get students, and how do you pay for them; should be decoupled
  • It's ethically okay to say yes, I will agree to be your supervisor, but I can't fund you (~14 students will be funded through other sources)
  • Tension between wanting to know how the system works to make it clear, and the fact that there's not going to be a clean system for how it works. Much discussion as to why this was. Some points:
    • From a risk management sense, it's better to manage from the center, but if we make that up front, the system breaks
    • It's a social ordering problem, but now we're floating around in the dark
    • There's an upper bound on the # of students, and therefore the amount of money we're talking about
    • We don't know what we're doing, it's broken, everyone's in the dark is a valid complaint, but it's invalid to say that there will be a good, easy mechanism to fix it.

• Proposed topics
  • Course contracts (learning prereq's and outcomes for courses) (16 votes)
  • Faculty Affairs mandate (10 votes)
  • no-op, continue free discussion at tables (5 votes)
• Discussion: course contracts
  • communicate prerequisites and outcomes with students (and all other instructors)
  • how to avoid a course drifting in subject matter over time ?
  • various proposals:
    • course keeper model?
    • semi-formal dept-based course descriptions?
    • inclusion of practical info such as programming languages used ?
    • keep around web pages of past sections for archival reference ?

Notes 2005/12/01

• • • Suggested follow-up: Bill will convey best wishes.

• • • Suggested follow-up: straw poll heavily against. Special meeting to be scheduled.

• • • Suggested follow-up: Curriculum Committee to decide if department is ready to decide. Q?: Is it ready to go to the department meeting? Straw poll: Yes - 13; No - 12

• • • Suggested follow-up: bring up at Grad Affairs

• • • Follow-up: Kelly has undertaken to craft a condolence message on behalf of the Dept.

• • • Suggested follow-up: Straw poll expressed strong preference for continuing today's new format,

• -- HH 01 Dec 2005 minor wording changes

Notes 2005/11/03

• Proposed topics
  • CPSC 121 Revision Proposals, (19 votes, rank 1)
  • Infuriating scandal of Dempster whiteboards (3 votes)
  • (Quick item): Discussion of Breadth requirements for next time (10 votes, rank 3)
  • What should we teach our undergrads? (especially 1/2 year) (15 votes, rank 2)
  • (Quick Item): Wish our ACM Programming Teams good luck this weekend (6 votes)
  • Faculty affairs committee - what does it do? (7 votes)
  • Want cheap/good food on campus, food services sucks (4 votes)
  • Need for evening and night food from Reboot (1 vote)
• Discussion
  • Quick: ACM programming contest - regionals are here this weekend, Nov 5-6.
    • ACTION: Bill will convey best wishes.
  • Quick: Breadth committee wants to dedicate next BB to Breadth Requirements for Ph.D.'s
    • ACTION: straw poll heavily against. Special meeting to be scheduled.
  • CPSC121 Revision
    • ACTION: Curriculum Committee to decide if department is ready to decide. Q?: Is it ready to go to the department meeting? Straw poll: Yes - 13; No - 12

• -- TMM 04 Nov 2005 add 05/11/03 notes

Faculty Brown Bag Luncheons

Format

• TakeTwo
• TakeOne

Notes 2005/10/06

• Proposed topics: (r denotes voting rank )

• Four issues discussed
  • role(s) of committee members vs second reader
  • distinctions between "breadth" and "research" Masters
    • ACTION: boot to Grad Affairs
  • Sam Chanson was recognized as a highly valued former colleague. A moment of silence was observed in his honor.
    • ACTION: Kelly has undertaken to craft a condolence message on behalf of the Dept.
  • BB format
    • ACTION: Straw poll expressed strong preference for continuing today's new format,

Edit History

• -- TMM 03 Nov 2005
• -- HolgerHoos - 16 Oct 2005 (created)

Faculty Brown Bag Luncheons - Notes:

Notes from 2005/10/06 [by DGK]

Proposed topics: (r denotes voting rank )

• ACM print subscriptions being cancelled from the reading room
• (1) M.Sc. thesis committees: pro forma or real?
• Grade inflation (& effect on scholarships)
• (2) What should we teach our undergrad students (years 1&2, in particular)
• How do we talk about computing to faculty in other areas (and generate new research ideas)?
• (4) Change the BB format--skip phase 1.5?
• "Internal" seminar series--what became of this proposal?
• (3) Send condolence note to Sam Chanson website on behalf of the Dept.
• Faculty Affairs Committee--what are its responsibilities?

(1) Two issues: (i) role(s) of committee members vs second reader and (ii) distinctions between "breadth" and "research" Masters ACTION: boot to Grad Affairs

(3) Sam was recognized as a highly valued former colleague. A moment of silence was observed in his honor. ACTION: Kelly has undertaken to craft a condolence message on behalf of the Dept.

(4) ACTION: Straw poll expressed strong preference for continuing today's new format, without phase 1.5 (the mixer remixed)