|
| Authored by: uws archive on Thursday, August 15 2002 @ 10:35 AM CDT |
This is an archived comment posted by Joshua Chud. You can view the original
here. President Johnston:
Could you express some thoughts on the issue that the recent agreement with Microsoft might damage the reputation for academic freedom for which Waterloo is known?[ Parent ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: uws archive on Thursday, August 15 2002 @ 10:37 AM CDT |
This is an archived comment posted by Doug Suerich. You can view the original
here. Mr. Johnson,
Could you please describe the consultation process that resulted in this decision? Who was involved in the decision?
Are there minutes available from any of the pertinent meetings?
Doug
[ Parent ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: uws archive on Thursday, August 15 2002 @ 10:40 AM CDT |
This is an archived comment posted by Joshua Chud. You can view the original
here. President Johnston:
The news releases from the University and from Microsoft Canada have used the figure $2.3 million. Can you tell us how this money will be divided between the research effort and the curriculum changes? Also, do you think that $2.3 million is enough to cover the expenses that the announced changed will incur? Specifically, I imagine that both the TabletPC research effort and the curriculum changes will require the purchse of new hardware and new software lisences. Is the $2.3 million a 'cash' donation, or will some/most of it be in the form of equivalent value for Microsoft products?[ Parent ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: uws archive on Thursday, August 15 2002 @ 10:45 AM CDT |
This is an archived comment posted by Joshua Chud. You can view the original
here. Mr. Johnston:
In the wake of the Microsoft announcment, my impression of the student reaction has been that studets are rather disturbed that this deal seemed to have been made without the usual amount of consultation with the University community. As a Math/CS student, I and many others are now worried that there will be a similar arrangment made in our faculty/school with similarily little warning. Are there plans like this in the works, in Math or in any other faculty? With Microsoft or any other corporation?[ Parent ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: uws archive on Thursday, August 15 2002 @ 10:59 AM CDT |
This is an archived comment posted by heshield. You can view the original
here. Dear President Johnston,
University of Waterloo, in the not so distant past, has had prolonged negotiations and arguments about
intellectual property rights, patent rights and copyright issues that sprang from the its long history of
innovation. Could you please inform the UW community about when innovations on this young C#
programming language does occur, who will own that innovation? As a subsequent consequence, will
those modifications be open to the public? In addition, when the new Tablet PC programming
innovations occur, who will be the intellectual property rights as well as financial beneficiary of all that
hard work done here on the Waterloo campus? Lastily, if there are already pre-arranged agreements between
the UW employees and Microsoft, could those agreements be looked at?[ Parent ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: uws archive on Thursday, August 15 2002 @ 11:05 AM CDT |
This is an archived comment posted by Joshua Chud. You can view the original
here. Mr. Johnston:
Obviously, an agreement of this magnitude/scope could not have been entered into lightly. Could you perhaps shed some light onto the decision-making process? What did you personally think were the greatest advantages and disadvantages of making this agreement with Microsoft?[ Parent ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: uws archive on Thursday, August 15 2002 @ 11:12 AM CDT |
This is an archived comment posted by Joshua Chud. You can view the original
here. Mr. Johnston:
How do you feel this agreement will affect the co-op program at UW, specifically for students in the technical disciplines? Already, enrollment is outstripping CECS' ability to keep the placement numbers up - how do you think limiting first-year E&CE students' development skills to a proprietary Microsoft platform will impact co-op hiring from other companies? Do you think this will put UW students at an advantage or a disadvantage?[ Parent ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: uws archive on Thursday, August 15 2002 @ 11:30 AM CDT |
This is an archived comment posted by Henrik. You can view the original
here. Hello,
It seems like Microsoft is giving us money in exchange for requiring students to learn C#. In other words, it seems like we're being bought. I don't like the smell of this. Please comment.[ Parent ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: uws archive on Thursday, August 15 2002 @ 11:31 AM CDT |
This is an archived comment posted by Henrik. You can view the original
here. Hello,
It seems like Microsoft is giving us money in exchange for requiring students to learn C#. In other words, it seems like we're being bought. I don't like the smell of this. Please comment.[ Parent ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: uws archive on Thursday, August 15 2002 @ 11:57 AM CDT |
This is an archived comment posted by Rob Ewaschuk. You can view the original
here. President Johnston,
Obviously, at least in some circles, this decision has caused a lot of controversy.
Did you predict this controversy? Did you do anything to mitigate it? Do you feel that it is part of the job of the university administration to consult students on such partnerships (particularly with such controversial companies), or do you feel that the university administration is entitled to make these decisions unilaterally?
Thanks,
Rob Ewaschuk
[ Parent ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: uws archive on Thursday, August 15 2002 @ 12:04 PM CDT |
This is an archived comment posted by Rob Ewaschuk. You can view the original
here.
President Johnston,
DiCiccio was quoted yesterday as saying that 2.3million wasn't enough to buy curriculum.
I find it unlikely that the very first serious suggestion of C# being taught in E&CE was made by the E&CE people, who then suggested a partnership with Microsoft. Thus, I conclude that some of the cause of these changes came from Microsoft. While I have only mild concerns about industry directing research that they fund (fully!), I am concerned about influences to curriculum, no matter how slight.
So, my question: How much is too much influence for a private entity to have over the curriculum delivered? Is any level acceptable? Where do you draw the line? How do you know when you've got there?
Thank you for your time,
Rob Ewaschuk [ Parent ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: uws archive on Thursday, August 15 2002 @ 01:01 PM CDT |
This is an archived comment posted by Rob Ewaschuk. You can view the original
here. President Johnston,
Recently, the university has been appealing to the federal and provincial government funding to cover the infrastructural costs of research. While this deal may cover all of the direct costs, it may end up costing the university, both in the opportunity cost from the professors and graduate students that do research for Microsoft, but also in the infrastructural costs of supporting these researchers.
It seems that part of the good-will involved in any initiative such as this one should involve a significant percentage of funds that are to be spent (truly) at the discretion of the university. Without knowing a lot about the breakdown of the costs of research, I would peg this between 10% and 40% of the donation. Do you agree with this? Why or why not? Were such discretionary funds included with the Microsoft initiative?
Thank you for your time,
Rob Ewaschuk
Does the $2.3 million include any fund[ Parent ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: uws archive on Thursday, August 15 2002 @ 01:02 PM CDT |
This is an archived comment posted by Jay. You can view the original
here. I am just wondering why ECE050, not so much that it teaches C#, but why should the applicants to the E&CE programs be required to take and pass a programming course? From my understanding, more students struggle with 1st years calculus and chemistry than with programming, and from my personal experience, knowning how to differentiate is as, if not more, important in the ECE program than how to program in C#. If it is possible to make applicants take the ECE050, why don't we start a summer school program that makes sure that students are up to par in every subject, instead of just one. The ECE program is more than coding (as opposed to Soft Eng and CS). There is also a very important and difficult hardware component. I therefore humbly suggest the introduction of ECE 060, which will introduce high school students to electric circuit analysis, so that they can more easily absorb the physics and ECE 100 materials.
Being a Devil's advocate, I also suggest ECE010, which will teach ECE students how to get dates. I could've used it. :) But that's another story.[ Parent ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: uws archive on Thursday, August 15 2002 @ 01:19 PM CDT |
This is an archived comment posted by Rob Ewaschuk. You can view the original
here. While this may come to light between now and when you answer this question, I'd like to ask it now anyway.
What are the conditions of this agreement? Can it be reversed/halted? What would cause it to be reversed? Is it appropriate for a University to enter into an irreversible agreement that is basically a surprise-announcement?
Thank you for your time,
Rob Ewaschuk[ Parent ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: uws archive on Thursday, August 15 2002 @ 01:22 PM CDT |
This is an archived comment posted by Josh. You can view the original
here. Jesse, when you do these 'interviews', what criteria will the uws editors use for selecting the 10 best questions?
-Josh[ Parent ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: uws archive on Thursday, August 15 2002 @ 01:49 PM CDT |
This is an archived comment posted by Darcy Casselman. You can view the original
here. As an alumni, what pains me about the debacle is that the UW administration hasn't shown any evidence of realizing that changing the curriculum in a corporate funding announcement might be a concern to people. Surely they realize that a loss of academic independance is perceived as a great threat any time an academic institution forms closer ties with the corporate sector.
Why is there nothing in the press release that would hint at the reassurances the administration are no doubt going to give to students, alumni and the general public in the days and weeks to come?
Darcy Casselman, BMATH (CS, 1999).[ Parent ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: uws archive on Thursday, August 15 2002 @ 06:07 PM CDT |
This is an archived comment posted by Ryan Burns. You can view the original
here. This deal is very similar to high schools who sell their cafeteria rights to McDonalds, or other fast food providers. The school gets cash to butress the system, and the food chain gets to educate lifelong consumers of their products.
In the case of this deal, the product is directly related to our education, and is thus even more offensive. C++ is a widely used standard language with many applications (windows software, unix software, embedded code, testbenches for circuit design). C# is a proprietary language which is only useful for designing windows applications. I would conservatively estimate that less than 25% of E&CE students go on to jobs involving windows application coding, while many could require a knowledge of C++.
So in this deal, the University gets cash, and Microsoft gets to indoctrinate students in their new language, in the hope they will carry this knowledge to companies during work terms.
My question for President Johnson is this:
Are there any other plans to replace valuable and educational courses with training sessions for products most students will never see or use?[ Parent ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: uws archive on Thursday, August 15 2002 @ 08:31 PM CDT |
This is an archived comment posted by Tom Harvey. You can view the original
here. The guiding principles of academic freedom dictate that a university remain independent in its pursuits of knowledge. It is for this reason the university system is allowed to keep its own curriculum, unhampered by government interference. It is also from this broad freedom to explore knowledge that many of our most significant advances have come.
How do you respond to those who believe these principles have been violated, by allowing Microsoft to narrowly focus research on its products for its own gain, and by agreeing to a change in the curriculum to the potential future benefit of Microsoft (via a base of coders trained in and familiar with it .NET initiative)?[ Parent ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: uws archive on Thursday, August 15 2002 @ 11:08 PM CDT |
This is an archived comment posted by howard swerdfeger. You can view the original
here. Are you as a university actively seeking (campaigning for) similar arrangements with other corporations?
Or are you only considering offers such as this as they are presented to you?
Or is this the only such alliance that you feel UW will enter into?
Note: my perception of the arrangement, and thus a similar arrangement is this:
A Large Corporation “Donates” a large amount of money to the university.
In return the university adds or changes part of it curriculum, after collaboration with the large corporation.
[ Parent ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: uws archive on Thursday, August 15 2002 @ 11:11 PM CDT |
This is an archived comment posted by howard swerdfeger. You can view the original
here. In general do you feel it is ethical to modify curriculum, based at least partially on a donation?
On the same lines
Do you feel it is necessary for UW enter into these type of corporate relationships, as mater of financial survival?
[ Parent ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: uws archive on Thursday, August 15 2002 @ 11:17 PM CDT |
This is an archived comment posted by howard swerdfeger. You can view the original
here. How much of these donations are in the form of hardware and software?
And how much is in the form of cash?
[ Parent ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: uws archive on Thursday, August 15 2002 @ 11:22 PM CDT |
This is an archived comment posted by howard swerdfeger. You can view the original
here. Will these courses in C# be using Microsoft’s .net development environment and compiler?
Or will they use independent third party tools as compilers?
[ Parent ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: uws archive on Friday, August 16 2002 @ 01:17 AM CDT |
This is an archived comment posted by Andy. You can view the original
here. Mr. Johnson:
I demand to know whether you ever get sick of people looking a gift horse in the mouth.[ Parent ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: uws archive on Friday, August 16 2002 @ 01:08 PM CDT |
This is an archived comment posted by John Doe. You can view the original
here. Are you going to change your name to "Redmond University"? I had a lot of respect for UW before this. I can't believe what a disservice this is to your students. [ Parent ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: uws archive on Friday, August 16 2002 @ 04:12 PM CDT |
This is an archived comment posted by Adam Trelford. You can view the original
here. How exactly was this agreement with Microsoft reached? Did they approach the university or is the university actively
seeking donations from corporate sponsors? It would seem to me that this is a rather obvious conflict of interest that
the university should've resisted. What is the price on the independence of education? I think it is much more than a
few million dollars. Perhaps I am just too naive, obviously the university is out to make a profit...but at the cost of subjecting
their students to the Microsoft monopoly? Mr. Johnston, did we just sell our soul to the devil?[ Parent ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: uws archive on Friday, August 16 2002 @ 11:52 PM CDT |
This is an archived comment posted by a cs grad student. You can view the original
here.
Having read the messages posted by E faculty members,
I am willing to believe that changes to use C# in E do not
sacrifice the academic integrity of engineering, although I
believe a similar change will sacrifice the academic integrity
in CS. (Since CS have 3 different levels of courses to handle
students of varying background, they don't need a pre-university course to bring every one to the same level).
However, I believed that Waterloo's reputation is at stake. It
is impossible to make people outside of the university understand the problems that lead to this change in curriculum.
What they do see is that Microsoft is starting to influence the
curriculum. Already individuals are suggesting they need
never look at another Waterloo co-op or grad (despite the
fact that CS is not involved). Alumni are stating they
will stop donating to their university. Based on Maclean's,
Waterloo has been the reputational leader in Canadian
universities for the past few years. Now even our own
alumni believes that the university has sold out.
Can you give reasons as to why you believe that the
university's reputation will not suffer based on the global
negative reaction to the news release?
And if the negativity surrounding this issue is a valid cause
for alarm, will the university be able to re-negotiate this
agreement to ensure that our reputation do not suffer?
[ Parent ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: uws archive on Saturday, August 17 2002 @ 02:13 PM CDT |
This is an archived comment posted by Rob Ewaschuk. You can view the original
here.
"It's true that the C# language is being introduced into the courses because of the Microsoft arrangement,[Chaudhuri, the engineering faculty dean] said"
from http://www.therecord.com/news/news_0208179293.html
A single, simple question: How could you let this happen?
-Rob[ Parent ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: uws archive on Wednesday, August 21 2002 @ 10:59 AM CDT |
This is an archived comment posted by Jesse Helmer. You can view the original
here. uws readers,
We've selected ten questions from those posed to President Johnston. Please cricitize the ten we've selected. After reviewing your criticism, we will send out ten questions to President Johnston later today.
- Do you feel that it is part of the job of the university administration to consult students on such partnerships (particularly with such controversial companies), or do you feel that the university administration is entitled to make these decisions unilaterally?
- Already, enrollment is outstripping CECS' ability to keep the placement numbers up - how do you think limiting first-year E&CE students' development skills to a proprietary Microsoft platform will impact co-op hiring from other companies?
- How much is too much influence for a private entity to have over the curriculum delivered?
- Could you express some thoughts on the issue that the recent agreement with Microsoft might damage the reputation for academic freedom for which all Universities stand?
- Can the agreement be reversed/halted? What would cause it to be reversed?
- Is it appropriate for a University to enter into an irreversible agreement that is basically a surprise-announcement?
- What decision-making bodies has this proposal passed through?
- Could you please describe the consultation process that resulted in this decision? Who was involved in the decision?
- What University level policies are in place that lay out what may be put on the table when dealing with potential benefactors (investors)?
- Are there plans like this in the works, in Math or in any other faculty?
[ Parent ]
|
|
