|
|
| Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User
|
|
| Support uws |
 |
|
|
|
|
| President Johnston admits mistakes in UW-MS deal (Jesse Helmer) |
Contributed by: uws archive on Friday, September 13 2002 @ 02:40 PM CDT
|
This is an archived story posted by Jesse Helmer. You can view the original
here. At a forum organized by EngSoc, UW President Johnston said that mistakes were made in the announcement of a partnership with Microsoft Canada Co.
"In retrospect, it was a mistake to announce an agreement in principle with respect to the curriculum initiatives, a mistake for which I take responsibility." He continued, "In retrospect, we should not — I should not — have announced that agreement in principle at that stage because the necessary consultations with curriculum committees, and department and faculty had not been had, should have been had, and will now be had."
About 20 people asked questions of the five-member panel, which consisted of President David Johnston, Dean Sujeet Chaudhuri, E&CE Chair Tony Vannelli, ICR Director Vic DiCiccio, and School of Computer Science Director Frank Tompa. At least 125 people attended the forum, including students, alumni, professors, administrators, and reporters.
Dean Chaudhuri noted that the curriculum process for engineering is quite strict. "I would like to assure you that, because we are a professional programme, fully accredited programmes, that the curriculum approval process is so tight, and so diligent, that this magnitude could not have taken place without proper procedure that we follow."
Johnston described what will happen in the coming weeks. "What we will have to do over the next few weeks is ensure that the necessary for any curriculum change occurs, and that those committees, and, ultimately, the Senate that oversees them, are satisfied that the principles that we always must observe when external funding is involved in anything are followed in this case."
The MS-UW deal will be talked about at Monday's meeting of Senate, the the university's highest academic body. In early September, the President of UW's faculty association requested a "full airing" of the issue at Senate.
The forum was streamed live on http://mp3.feds.ca, and is available as a 28.5 MB MP3.
|
| |
|
|
|
| Authored by: uws archive on Friday, September 13 2002 @ 05:10 PM CDT |
This is an archived comment posted by Tushar. You can view the original
here. ...had not been had, should have been had, and will now be had.
Should've, would've, could've...same old story, it's both sad and bad and I feel like I've been had. [ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: uws archive on Saturday, September 14 2002 @ 01:47 AM CDT |
This is an archived comment posted by simon. You can view the original
here. I'm reposting this from an earlier thread...
The MS/UW Forum transcription project:
http://simonwoodside.com/projects/msuw.php
This is a project to transcribe the recording of the public forum generously hosted by EngSoc and streamed live by the Feds. Please help me release the whole transcript by transcribing a 5-minute portion. Or two :-) The mp3 file is available from the link in the story above.
I will coordinate the transcription effort and post the up-to-date transcription on this page as they become available. I will release the results under the GNU GPL.
Simon[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: uws archive on Sunday, September 15 2002 @ 01:50 AM CDT |
This is an archived comment posted by simon. You can view the original
here. Sept 13 UW reconsiders deal with Microsoft estimates up to 175 people present
Sept 12 Microsoft plan under review, UW dean says includes an interview with Ka-Ping Yee.
Sept 12 Editorial Review required of Microsoft deal
a little older:
Aug 31 UW faculty association adds voice to critics of deal with Microsoft
Aug 17 editorial A gift to accept with care [ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: uws archive on Sunday, September 15 2002 @ 03:42 PM CDT |
This is an archived comment posted by Ka-Ping Yee. You can view the original
here. Now that the forum has provided us with new
information about the deal, it is my responsibility
for me to update my position accordingly. Here's
a letter I sent today that explains that new position.
I welcome your thoughts and comments.
Dear President, Engineering Faculty, and Student Representatives:
Since all indications of the signing of the Microsoft-UW agreement
have now been retracted, my earlier criticism relating to the
acceptance of such an agreement no longer applies. I applaud
President Johnston for his openness in accepting responsibility for
the premature announcement and communication problems surrounding
the agreement.
However, I continue to urge the University of Waterloo to proceed
with extreme caution in this matter. The approval process to occur
over the next year begins with an agreement that has already been
written up according to Microsoft's terms. This is a weak position
from which to negotiate. Participation of student representatives
should not be limited to a "yes" or "no" approval of C#. To put the
needs of students first, UW must consider all possible options,
including other languages, concepts, and tools, and must not limit
the scope of discussion to Microsoft proposals. Only after the best
options are determined should UW then seek funding. When curriculum
decisions are finalized, I expect to see solid objective evidence
supporting any changes.
I remain very concerned that C# is being considered for E&CE 050.
I feel it would be inappropriate to base an admission qualification
on any single programming language, and completely absurd to require
a non-free, not-yet-ubiquitous language. Doing so would be a little
like changing the mathematics competitions so that they could only
be written in Danish -- except that one would also have to imagine
that Danish was just invented a few years ago by one company, and
that in order to write in Danish one has to buy special writing
tools from that company. I recognize that any programming course
has to be taught in some language; for an introductory course, UW
should be considering free, established, very-high-level languages
like Python or Scheme. But for admission, UW should allow multiple
languages, and should test incoming students on programming concepts,
not on language-specific or company-specific knowledge.
My personal opinion on C# is that it is a poor choice because it is
not a mature programming language, is too controlled by a single
corporation, does not have an established community of programmers,
and does not have solid development tools on all platforms. The
only complete implementation of C# was just released a few months
ago, only runs on Windows, and is licensed under terms that give
Microsoft control over how you are allowed to use the language.
This is in stark contrast to other major languages taught in schools,
for which development tools have been available for many years, for
free, for any use, on all platforms. I trust that these facts will
come to light in the ensuing investigations.
Yours sincerely,
?
Ka-Ping Yee
[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: uws archive on Sunday, September 15 2002 @ 05:46 PM CDT |
This is an archived comment posted by Mike. You can view the original
here. I was disappointed to see a post with so many errors. It detracts from the point you are trying to make, which is that people screwed up under pressure.[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: uws archive on Sunday, September 15 2002 @ 06:24 PM CDT |
This is an archived comment posted by Anonymous Coward. You can view the original
here. Too bad they reversed their position. Had they just stuck with Microsoft I could have crossed another university off my list. Guess I'll have to consider going there again.
/me waves to the slashdot hordes [ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: uws archive on Monday, September 16 2002 @ 01:27 AM CDT |
This is an archived comment posted by Diplomatically Anonymous Coward. You can view the original
here. I'm a senior-level software engineer at a software development company of several hundred people in Minneapolis, MN, USA. Part of my job is to provide technical evaluations of job candidates. In these evaluations, even for candidates with solid industry experience, I pay close attention to academic background, looking unfavorably on programs and coursework which seem too narrowly focused on specific languages and platforms.
I must say, I'd be extremely suspicious of any candidate coming from a university which taught to a particular platform as a matter of policy -- especially under a contractual obligation to a particular vendor. I need flexible, adaptable, broadly experienced hires who can think outside the conceptual lines of specific languages; I think most other technology professionals would say the same.
I urge the University of Waterloo to consider whether the financial incentives of this agreement are worth the damage to the credibility of its job-seeking students.[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: uws archive on Monday, September 16 2002 @ 03:00 AM CDT |
This is an archived comment posted by Ian Firla. You can view the original
here. What on earth?
Universities have an *obligation* to operate upon peer-reviewed open standards and to teach students the value of peer-review and openness.
That's one point which helps form a fundamental difference between a university and a vocational institution. There are many schools offering very good courses on specific languages which a student with a good foundation in the principles of programming can go on and learn as job requirements demand; however, these are schools or training centres, not universities.
If the University of Waterloo wants to remain a respected university, it should seriously reconsider making one of its core degrees vocational.[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: uws archive on Tuesday, September 17 2002 @ 11:35 PM CDT |
This is an archived comment posted by Steve. You can view the original
here. Did anyone go? What came of the Faculty Association's letter?[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: uws archive on Thursday, September 19 2002 @ 12:49 PM CDT |
This is an archived comment posted by hak. You can view the original
here. Let me start off by saying will all sincerity that as a CS student at UW, I offer my deepest condolences to the poor E&CE students. No student should have to worry about his/her university screwing up his/her career.
My argument is perhaps a little childish and immature, but hey, so is C#. Let me share some words of wisdom from something the legendary Troy Vasiga (a CS prof) once said:
“… the programming language should not matter. As a programmer, [I] should be able to write code in ANY language using the concepts [I] learned through [my] education [at UW] and [my] experience… given that the language doesn’t suck.”
From my experience with C# and writing actual code in C#, I can tell you that right now it sucks. It’s filled with more bugs than Muskoka in summer. Check out just a couple of them within internet applications at http://www.devasp.net/net/search/displayc.asp?c_id=922 and rest assured there will be many more. So how would you rather spend your time working on assignments -- finishing them off quick so you can go to Wednesday's at the Bomber or spending countless hours searching the web for workarounds? There are many other good reasons C# should not be included in the E&CE curriculum which I will not bother reiterating because others have done a much better than job than I could (see letter by Ka-Ping Yee and others).
Now before you get too hopeful that the curriculum changes will get canned, let me remind you that UW has a long history of pushing bad ideas through, even when there is strong opposition from the student body. I’m sure that each and every student can think of at least five or ten different instances where UW has implemented a bad idea or messed up a good idea horribly. UW is run much like our government. How much faith do you have in our government? Place about that much hope in UW beaurocracy. Do I sound cynical?
Have a wonderful day. [ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: uws archive on Thursday, September 19 2002 @ 03:52 PM CDT |
This is an archived comment posted by P. Quealey. You can view the original
here. 'Initiatives' still vital, Chakma says
"I am satisfied that we have appropriate controls" to keep decisions about curriculum from being made in the wrong way, provost Amit Chakma told UW's senate on Monday.
He was reporting on "externally funded curricular initiatives", which chiefly meant the controversial Microsoft Alliance agreement that may lead to the use of Microsoft's C# programming language to teach some UW engineering students.
"We never really compromised the academic integrity of our programs," said Chakma, noting that although the arrangement was announced early, without the necessary approvals, "it could not be implemented before we took it to our curriculum committees." That is now being done.
"We clearly announced the agreement prematurely," Chakma said, "but that doesn't take away our intention to provide the latest tools to our students," including C# if it turns out that that's what first-year electrical and computer engineering students need to learn.
It's good, he reminded the senate, for faculty members to bring new things into the classroom: "We should not create an environment where our colleagues are so worried that they will not take initiatives." (Or, as he put it later: "We have to take risks. Sometimes mistakes will be made, and then they will be corrected.")
The provost said he had first thought that UW might need a new set of rules to make sure that changes and experiments, propelled by external money, don't happen without approval from everybody whose involvement is needed. But, he said, he has concluded that the existing rules are adequate, as long as they're followed.
"I take full responsibility," he said, "for the academic integrity of everything that we do."
New "sign-off procedures" will be worked out, he added, to avoid the confusion that apparently happened in the Microsoft case, in which some people whose approval should have been sought, including the dean of engineering, didn't get involved until it was too late.
Catherine Schryer, president of the faculty association, said in the discussion that followed that UW "is going to become involved in more and more complex deals . . . I would like to see an elaboration of that formal mechanism of approval."
"Consider that done," the provost replied. "We have to have the paper trail."
The provost's memo to the deans
At the senate meeting, Chakma distributed copies of a memo to the deans of UW's faculties, dated September 12, dealing with "recent events" and standards for curriculum change. Here's what it said:
In view of the recent controversy over the use of the C# language in E&CE courses, I have reviewed our existing procedures and practices regarding curriculum development and found them to be adequate. In this specific case, we should not have announced our agreement in principle with Microsoft before completing the normal curriculum approval process. This memo is to serve as a reminder of our current practices.
It seems to me that UW has always been an outward looking, innovative institution with strong links to its external communities and distinctive characteristics that set it apart from other postsecondary institutions. A key distinction arises from the commitment of UW founders to link learning to the 'real world'. This linkage, manifested in UW's world-renowned cooperative education program, affects academic activities at all levels throughout the institution.
In my judgment, UW remains committed to preserving and enhancing this distinction -- a key reason why UW is thought of as the most innovative university in Canada. This innovative spirit extends to the classroom where it is important that we continue to experiment with our curriculum and with new concepts, methodologies and pedagogical approaches, within established processes and practices.
To be leaders in curriculum innovation, we must continue to:
provide the best educational experience for our students, exposing them to the best available methodologies;
ensure that curriculum decisions are overseen by the appropriate Faculty Councils under the authority of Senate or one of its committees/councils;
vest responsibility for primary decisions on curriculum matters with academic colleagues in academic units [i.e. UW instructors and Departmental / Faculty curriculum committees];
experiment with learning tools [e.g. text books, software, equipment] from our own sources or from other academic institutions and commercial entities, including proprietary sources;
welcome external financial or in-kind support, ensuring that it does not inappropriately influence curriculum development.
We can't be reminded too often about these matters. Looking back in the months ahead, we may very well conclude that the main lesson to be learned from these events is that it is more important to do it right than to do it quick. [ Parent ]
|
| |
|
|
|
