SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
MEMORANDUM
To ........................... ALL MEMBERSOFSENATEDEPARThENT
CHAIRMEN AND OTHERS NORMALLY
.......................... .RECEIVINGSE.NAT.EPAPERS... ......................... ...
Subject ..... .... .......
ADP,IIQNAL. ... SENATE ...PAPE,S.. FROM
SENATE MEETING OF DECEMBER 7, 1970,
From
.............. B. KELSEY
DIRECTOR OF SECRETARIAT SERVICES
Date......
DECEMBER .•, 1970
Attached are two papers (S.437a, S.437b) circulated
to Senators prior to the Senate meeting of December 7, 1970.
They accompany Paper S.437, dealing with the new program in
Computer Science, and are being distributed at this point for
the information and records of Senators, Department Chairmen
and other individuals normally receiving Senate papers
Att.
IBK/ d p
.
.
SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
S.
14
/
MEMORANDUM
0
To. ..
.
Members of Senate
From
Dr. E. M. Shoemaker, Acting Head
Mathematics Department
Subject
COMPUTING SCIENCE
Date
December 3, 1970
Attached is a statement by the Mathematics Department,
intended as a rebuttal to the report of the Academic Planning
Committee in its recommendations regarding the Computing Science
program.
.
0
.
The Academic Planning Committee has recommended that the
Computing Science program be included in the division of general
studies. The Mathematics Department disagrees with this recommenda-
tion and would like to make the following arguments as a refutation
of the committee's report and as a support of its own view.
The committee presents on page 3 of its report four arguments
in favour of its conclusion. Of these, points (a) and (d) are the same,
or rather point (d) presents evidence to justify point (a). As regards
point (a) itself, we would suggest that, the fact that a program is
inter-disciplinary is not justification for incorporating it in the
division of general studies. If it were, then several of our existing
departments must also be so incorporated, for example economics and
commerce, modern languages, bio-sciences, and mathematics itself, all
of which offer inter-disciplinary programs. While we do not wish to
argue against the possible value of the new division in certain cases,
we do believe that it should not be used as a universal vehicle for
every new venture which departs from the narrow lines of the classical
disciplines. This would only serve to make even narrower the interests
of the existing departments.
It is hard to disagree with point (b), since no one can deny
that all things are possible. Of perhaps more concern, however, is the
question as to whether the eventuality envisaged in this point is not
merely possible but probable. In this connection we would suggest that
•
the record of the mathematics department speaks for itself. We already
mount a large number of service courses oriented towards non-mathematics
majors and non-science majors (and would mount even more if our budget
allowed it). In designing-these courses we have been a hundred percent
responsive to the suggestions of other departments and of students. In
addition to this, we would point to the research interests of our depart-
ment, which are wider than almost any other mathematics department on
this continent. Thus there would appear to be very little evidence in
favour of the probability that computer science would be restricted to a
scientific orientation if it were introduced by the mathematics department;
in fact the evidence points to the contrary.
Finally, point (c). One wonders if the academic planning
committee really believes that a computing science program would be pro-
bationary. If so it must be closing its eyes to the evidence of almost
every other University, where computing science programs are thriving
and established parts of the academic life. To be sure, the program
would be experimental, but not more so than many of our other programs,
which are undergoing continual review and change.
It is perhaps worth pointing out also that the proposals for
implementation of the computer science program which are made in the
committee report are identical with the proposals previously submitted
by the mathematics department, even though the language of the report
migh t
lead the reader to believe that they originated with the committee.
0
0
-2-
Turning now to the positive side, the arguments for retention
of the program within the mathematics department were put in part by
the report:
(a)
With its existing core of applied mathematicians and computing
science specialists the mathematics department offers an environment
in which the proposed program could be fostered.
(b)
Within the mathematics department, the program can be oriented to
meet the needs of the entire University community.
(c)
Putting the program in the division of general studies would add
an unnecessary administrative burden by introducing yet another com-
mittee structure.
We certainly agree with these arguments, and our discussion
above lends support for (a) and (h). As regards point (c), the academic
planning committee is curiously silent, yet the point is surely a strong
one: the administrative cost of introducing computing science within
the mathematics department will be a small addition to existing costs;
within the division of general studies it will represent a whole new
item. This matter must be considered very seriously at a time when the
University is experiencing a budgetary squeeze.
40
In addition to these three points, there are others which we
should like to make, since the committee is apparently unwilling to make
them for us. Firstly, the committee anticipates the appointment of a
senior academic in computing science - a step which we fully support.
Now within the terms of reference of the division of general studies,
such an appointment would carry no right to tenure. The probability of
attracting any reputable senior academic under such circumstances must
be very slim indeed.
Beyond this there is the broader question as to whether the
computing science program fits into the framework of the division of
general studies as outlined in the report on the division approved by
Senate. An examination of the relevant points, 2(a)-(e), of that
report, shows that the computing science program does not at all fit
in. To take the points in order: Firstly, it is stated that a reduc-
tion in administrative costs would result from including a new program
in the division; we have indicated above that for computing science the
opposite would be very much the case. Secondly, it is suggested that
a unified treatment of all new programs would result from such an in-
clusion. While we do not dispute the possibility of this, we would
argue that it is equally important to ensure a uniform treatment of new
programs and our existing programs, particularly when, as with computing
science, over half of the courses that a prospective major would take
0
r p
-
.
-3-
are already given by a single existing department. Thirdly it is
stated that inclusion of a program within the division would help to
break down departmental resistance to the program. Where, we would
like to know, is the source of this 'departmental resistance' to
computer science? Finally, it is stated that procedures for non-
standard appointments are easier to envisage within the new division
than within the existing departmental structure. This may be true
in some cases, but we deny its applicability to our own department:
our willingness to make non-standard appointments is governed solely
by demand and the availability of funds.
One final point, which perhaps concerns ourselves more than
the University as a whole, is that we would like to see computing
science within our department as a means of strengthening and increas-
ing the breadth of our own academic interests. We do not wish to be
squeezed into a little pigeon hole which happens to have been labelled
'Mathematics' by an academic planner. But while this matter may be of
immediate concern only to ourselves, we would suggest that neither is
it in the best interests of the University to adopt a philosophy which
deliberately restricts the breadth of departments. This is only to
hinder, not foster, the growth of inter-disciplinary programs.
is
S
Ii
u
]\T
j
/
J
.
P
To . Members of Senate
From
. C. Wilson,
Cbairman Academic Planning Committee
Subject
.
Date
December 4,
19
7
0
... I ... .....
......
I .....
The Senate Agenda contains a reeonimenclation from the Academic
Planning Committee regarding the org
.
:nhzat:Lon of a Computer Science Program
at Simon Fraser Universit y
. This recommendation i iic].udes a description of the
initial phase of such a program which would appear to offer a good basis from
which students could subsequently move to a major in that field. The question
of the orientation of
5051
a mal or has been the subject of considerable discussion,
considerable support having been given to the idea that the program at S.F.U.
should lean towards com
p
uter management rather than com
p
uter science, within the
Faculty of Science, an approach common to most other universities.
The Academic Planning Committee took the view that this question
need not he faced at the present time and in fact, it might be possible to have-
two orientations to a Computer Science Program depending on student demand and
interest. The initial phase, however, as presented recently by the Department
•
of Mathematics contains basic courses, most of which would he essential prerequisites
to either of the final orientations discussed above, or indeed other directions for
a computer science major.
Dr. E.M. Shoemaker has circulated on behalf of the Mathematics
Department what is described as a rebuttal to the report of the Academic Planning
Committee and its recommendations regarding the Computer Science Program. Since
the Academic Planning Committee report is based in content on the Mathematics
proposal, there is no issue between the Mathematics Department and the Academic
Planning Committee on this point. Rather the very real concern of the Mathematics
Department is to see that the overall direction of the program may be removed from
the Mathematics Department which currently offers courses in computer science and
which would have controlled the development of computer science under the original
proposal from the Faculty of Science.
It must be admitted that part of the difficulty experienced by the
Mathematics Department, and probably many others as well., stems from the unfortunate
use by the Academic Planning Committee of the phrase General Studies in two quite
different contexts. At the Senate meeting in November, a Division of General Studies
was approved as an administrative structure which would facilitate the mounting of
interdepartmental and experimental programs and courses. In the Senate Agenda paper
for December, a Bachelor of General Studies Program is recommended, based on a
modification of present B.A. and B. Sc. requ:Lrcmcnts. The reason for this confus.i on
is historical in that an original paper to the Academic Planning Committee cnco::passed
these two very different proposals. The Academic Planning Committee at that time
•
separated the two issues but, as the proposals have been written up, the same title
encompasses '.oth ideas. It is clear that much of the confusion which has existed as
a result of this ambiguity, might have been dispelled by the use of a title such as
Division of Universit y
Programs or Division of S p
ecial Programs.
S
-2-
c!' nn! n e (mm 1: tee Be commendation therefore
511Cm] d i
v:i .
.'cdca L'
• a
, pI:ogrn;n in com p
uter science,
administered b
y
an :i n tcr d
1
:"n tal ccnnn:Lt tee consisting of faculty members
with specific interests in coiaucing science whether disciplinary oriented,
application oriented,
or
sysLcmc
oriented.
This committee would be the
standing committee within
the
I) i vision of ''Un: versi ty Programs" but the
members would a] most; :i nevit:nb] v he members of: specific. departments within the
Faculties of Arts,
'
c
E
ic
duc
nce nnd
ation.
.crsibl
T
y
he courses would be
offered within these Faculties and departments and ,if a com
p
uting science
major, in the more traditional d;iscini inc oriented sene, is subsequently approved
by Senate, it would seem likely and logical that a condidate would obtain a
B.Sc. in this subject area. Sir
r
:L]criy, if a major was developed in systems
management the student rn'igh t o!
'
tam a B .A. or N.A. degree, in such a program
taking many of his courses from current and future offerings by the Department
of Economics and Commerce.
The Division of General Studies ("University Programs") exists
as a device whereb y
such interde p
artmental programs can be mounted without
specific control being exercised by departments in areas where the subject matter
is of much more general interest than encompassed within a single department.
.
It also exists to provide a budgetary in
p
ut into a program area, where university
policy suggests that specific assistance should he given because of increasing
student demand, where it might he difficult to justify additional appointments in
certain participating departments where student demand is low compared to present
faculty resources.
The concern of the Department of Mathematics is a natural one
but is based, in my view, in part upon a misconception of the intention of the
Academic Planning Committee.
1 do not wish to respond in detail to the "rebuttal"
offered by the Department of Mathematics to the proposal to be considered by Senate
next Monday. However, I would like to make the following points. It is not that
the program is interdisciplinary that we suggest its incorporation in the Division
of General Studies. It is because it is multi-departmental and the Department of
Mathematics seems to ignore the fact that
computer science courses are currently
taught within the Department of Economics and Commerce and it would not seem unlikely,
if one followed a traditional. develo
p
ment, that specific courses in the area of
computer science might he offered b y
otPer de p
artments. The examples given of
Economics and Commerce, Modern Languages, Bio Sciences, and Mathematics itself
are really exam p
les of departments with multiple disciplines rather than inter-
disciplinary studies them';eives. Since I am new to the campus I cannot offer
comment
about
the record of the Natliemati.cs Department in providing service, courses
oriented towards non-mathematics majors and"the 100% responsiveness to the suggestion
of other departments and of students." I
do
note, however, that statistics courses
seem to appear, under a variet y
of headings, as course offerings by departments
other than the Mathematics Department. The probationary nature of the program
•
relates not to what has happened at other universities but the degree of student
response and the direction olst' tident interest in subsequent phases of the program
which are 'not yet clear at Si non Fraser. Further, the cost of the program can be
identified much more casi
iv u;de r tlie suggested format than if the program was
imbedded within several dc'part:enrs.
0
-3-
Sennt: u:i.] 1 have t.o m up
ai:c its o'.m mind whether, with its
e::is ti ng cure of m'3 4
rc
-'n
at
rv-i'uIl:nc'
Sc:!
(nCC
IiCJ.).].StS
the
:thcvniicn J;a
rI:1aL
an
c a. :cn:a
in
u:ich
nr:uascd
program could be fostered beLLe r than under the mechrtni sin suggested by the
Academic Planning Commit Lee . The two alternatives are clearly set out in
the report of the Academic Planning Committee which , while it: includes its
own specific recommendations, also spells out the alternatives in detail.
what about a(nnlnistrcitive costs? The structure proposed
suggests the formation of an interdepartmental committee to 'administer the
program.
If the Mathematics Department
p roposal were to be accepted,
presumably the Mathematics Department would, from time to time, set up
a committee including representatives from other departments to obtain
expressions of interests and advice regarding further developments. The
Department of Economics and Commerce would presumably do the same. Other
costs would be identifiable with facult
y
identified in the program and would
be spread over several de
p
artments under either proposal. It is difficult
to see that in this particular instancc,whether there would he much difference
in administrative costs.
The Mathematics Department
Itrehuttall!
makes points not raised
.
by the Academic Pihnning Committee. The question is raised about the senior
academic in computing science. It is stated that such an appointment would
carry no right to tenure. This might only be so if the individual appointed
was not acceptable to the Department of Mathematics and/or the Department
of Economics and Commerce or other department within the University. For
example, if-he was a computer science/numerical analyst of high quality
would he not be acceptable within the Department of Mathematics? If his
orientation was computer science/systems, he might well be an acceptable
candidate in the Department of Economics and Commerce. It is anticipated
by the Academic Planning Committee that almost all appointments made, with
responsibilities to the Division of General. Studies, will in fact be based
in current departments; consequently the appointments would lead to tenure in
the normal way. In any event, it seems to me that high quality appointees
are usually people who worry least about tneure since they can move with
considerable freedom from campus to campus.
Finally, let me comment on the last paragraph of the document
presented by the Mathematics Department. It is not the intention of the
Academic Planning Committee to create some kind of monster which will force
departments into "pi
g ion
holes" and to restrict flexibilit y in program develop-
ment. Our entire emphasis is in fact to introduce interdepartmental flexi'ility
of academic facult
y beyond the limits within which an y de p artment can have
expectation of autonomous growth. Further we ho p e to limit duplication of course
material in offerings presented by different departments.
.
In the present case, one can certainly see that the role of the
Department of Mathematics would he more I im:it:ed if the Academic Planning
Committee report is accepted. On the other hand, academics from at least one
other department, would have greater opportunities to contribute to computer
4
S
-
1, -
-
science d.v.] oecn t . 1
r
•
re the 'v;:r Li c c
fl? eiLeen t would
djfjjç
':ciic pcy1-as,
iiiathemu Li dens n re 1.iee
J V EC I!
rez,,
I
3CCC1-S
te
pro-ram
formulation
and participation than horetoferc
The statement: of the atiieinatics Department is a persuasive
document, in part: because
iL
is written by people who have real concern about
the suggested
dCVC
I o1)n:ent end :1 .' -:
")ecause it shows that ninny of the reasons
i ch
led to the setting op of t:he Division oF Camera]. S l:udies have no application
to the Computer Sciencc Program. Tine \cndcmic Planning Commit tee has never held
the view that all of the rc:cens
which led to the formation of the Division of
General Studies anpi
y
to evoiv specific program
whIic:1i
mi.gh t be organized in this
wa y
, so that
the feet that s:wral such re.nsons ;iro not relevant to the Computer
Science 1ci:rar: deer.
Oct. re. th.:
r:iev;.it to a cri ti.cism of the
Academic Planning Committee s rec:omnccndet:ions in this particular case.
I
B.C. Wilson
ams
0
4"