!CAAM

Report on March 25, 1997 meeting: Computer Science, Statistics, Computational and Applied Mathematics

Committee members:

Sidney Burrus and Benjamin Lee, joined later by Kathleen Mathews and Walter Isle

1.

Sidney opened with a description of our mandate to cover courses outside the major which are presently divided into distribution requirements and electives. What should students experience at Rice, and how this should be divided up across the non-major requirements. It was pointed out that some skills and experiences might not be easily divided into major/non-major requirements.

2.

There was a suggestion that if writing was such a critical skill, perhaps there could be a department of communication in the engineering school which could help students with writing technical papers and with presentation skills.

3.

Repeated emphasis upon the necessity for teaching critical thinking, how to put together an argument.

4.

Suspicion about the English departments ability to teach critical writing skills when they were involved in in massive indoctrination as evidenced by their lecture series in queer studies.

5.

Why not resuscitate cross-divisional double majors as a way of increasing breadth, rather than tying requirements to particular courses such as humanities 101-102 which was viewed as a plot to control courses by English and history. 6. Another alternative might be a coherent set of courses from the social sciences and humanities (like the University of Chicago).

6.

Another alternative might be a coherent set of courses from the social sciences and humanities (like the University of Chicago).

7.

There was a suggestion that courses with a heavy writing component should be labeled as such and that a certain number of them might be required to graduate.

8.

There was general agreement on the usefulness of small courses, even in calculus and the natural sciences. Small courses should not just be the property of humanities where they have been used to boost the number of faculty to the detriment of the natural sciences. The argument was raised that perhaps freshman wouldn't appreciate small courses and more emphasis on such classes should be made for upper level courses.

9.

There was a general discussion of why Rice lacked an intellectual life, including course overloads and bulkanization by the college system.

10.

There was a great concern about watered down courses just to look sexy. There were repeated references to humanities 101-102 and the cognitive science major as examples of superficiality rather than depth. A bioethics course should require knowledge both of biology and ethics, and not present watered down versions of each specialization.

1.	Sidney opened with a description of our mandate to cover courses outside the major which are presently divided into distribution requirements and electives. What should students experience at Rice, and how this should be divided up across the non-major requirements. It was pointed out that some skills and experiences might not be easily divided into major/non-major requirements.
2.	There was a suggestion that if writing was such a critical skill, perhaps there could be a department of communication in the engineering school which could help students with writing technical papers and with presentation skills.
3.	Repeated emphasis upon the necessity for teaching critical thinking, how to put together an argument.
4.	Suspicion about the English departments ability to teach critical writing skills when they were involved in in massive indoctrination as evidenced by their lecture series in queer studies.
5.	Why not resuscitate cross-divisional double majors as a way of increasing breadth, rather than tying requirements to particular courses such as humanities 101-102 which was viewed as a plot to control courses by English and history. 6. Another alternative might be a coherent set of courses from the social sciences and humanities (like the University of Chicago).
6.	Another alternative might be a coherent set of courses from the social sciences and humanities (like the University of Chicago).
7.	There was a suggestion that courses with a heavy writing component should be labeled as such and that a certain number of them might be required to graduate.
8.	There was general agreement on the usefulness of small courses, even in calculus and the natural sciences. Small courses should not just be the property of humanities where they have been used to boost the number of faculty to the detriment of the natural sciences. The argument was raised that perhaps freshman wouldn't appreciate small courses and more emphasis on such classes should be made for upper level courses.
9.	There was a general discussion of why Rice lacked an intellectual life, including course overloads and bulkanization by the college system.
10.	There was a great concern about watered down courses just to look sexy. There were repeated references to humanities 101-102 and the cognitive science major as examples of superficiality rather than depth. A bioethics course should require knowledge both of biology and ethics, and not present watered down versions of each specialization.