SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

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

MEMORANDUM

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.

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.

-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.

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

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.

]\T

To . Members of Senate

From

. C. Wilson,

Cbairman Academic Planning Committee

Subject

Date

December 4,

... 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

uter management rather than com

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.

-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

an :i n tcr d

:"n tal ccnnn:Lt tee consisting of faculty members

with specific interests in coiaucing science whether disciplinary oriented,

application oriented,

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,

duc

nce nnd

ation.

.crsibl

he courses would be

offered within these Faculties and departments and ,if a com

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

: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

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

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

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.

-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

-'n

rv-i'uIl:nc'

Sc:!

(nCC

IiCJ.).].StS

the

:thcvniicn J;a

rI:1aL

c a. :cn:a

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

identified in the program and would

be spread over several de

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

1, -

science d.v.] oecn t . 1

•

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,,

3CCC1-S

pro-ram

formulation

and participation than horetoferc

The statement: of the atiieinatics Department is a persuasive

document, in part: because

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

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.

B.C. Wilson

ams