Special 517: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
''Objection:'' Since only TAs would be enrolled, it establishes the precedent of offering courses only to a select group of students. | ''Objection:'' Since only TAs would be enrolled, it establishes the precedent of offering courses only to a select group of students. | ||
''Answer:'' CSC 630, CSC 695, CSC 699, CSC 890, CSC 895, or any departmental-approval required course is already a closed course. | ''Answer:'' CSC 630, CSC 695, CSC 699, CSC 890, CSC 895, or any departmental-approval required course is already a closed course. As to being a precedent for anything else, that is unlikely; see below. | ||
''Rebuttal:'' David Thuente made a point about the dissimilarity of this offering to 600- and 800-level courses, which I do not recall. | |||
== A precedent for abuse? === | |||
''Objection:'' If this were allowed, the department might have to deal with many proposals to offer courses for two or three students. | |||
''Answer:'' Such proposals would likely be rare to nonexistent. The Registrar, Louis Hunt, is not aware, offhand, of any similar offering at any time in the past. If they are ''new'' courses for two or three students, they would have to be approved by the appropriate departmental/college committees, as other courses are. Also, the lecture media files would have to be available, which would preclude all new courses. If they are sections of ''existing'' courses, why would anyone want to offer a tiny section as an overload when they could get teaching credit for taking a normal-sized section? The only motivation I can anticipate is a faculty member on leave who wants to improve continuity of his teaching and research program. | |||
Moreover, it is not argued that offering such a course ''for continuity of someone's teaching/research program'' is an abuse. It is just argued that it could be a precedent for some abuse. But, what abusive motivation might there be? Arguing that something should not be done now because it might possibly be a precedent for abuse later, when we don't have any idea what that abuse might be, is sheer speculation, and not a very strong reason to deny this request. | |||
Revision as of 03:31, 7 August 2008
Special Offering of CSC 517: The Issues
The proposal is to offer a special section of CSC 517 to two or three students holding teaching assistantships, while I am on sabbatical. The primary motivation is to provide more options for finding a qualified TA in 2009, though there are other advantages.
A DE course?
Objection: Since the students would view prerecorded lectures from 2007, it is essentially a DE course.
Answer: Since I would meet with the students for an hour a week, they would actually have more contact with me than if they were attending lectures in a classroom.
A closed course?
Objection: Since only TAs would be enrolled, it establishes the precedent of offering courses only to a select group of students.
Answer: CSC 630, CSC 695, CSC 699, CSC 890, CSC 895, or any departmental-approval required course is already a closed course. As to being a precedent for anything else, that is unlikely; see below.
Rebuttal: David Thuente made a point about the dissimilarity of this offering to 600- and 800-level courses, which I do not recall.
A precedent for abuse? =
Objection: If this were allowed, the department might have to deal with many proposals to offer courses for two or three students.
Answer: Such proposals would likely be rare to nonexistent. The Registrar, Louis Hunt, is not aware, offhand, of any similar offering at any time in the past. If they are new courses for two or three students, they would have to be approved by the appropriate departmental/college committees, as other courses are. Also, the lecture media files would have to be available, which would preclude all new courses. If they are sections of existing courses, why would anyone want to offer a tiny section as an overload when they could get teaching credit for taking a normal-sized section? The only motivation I can anticipate is a faculty member on leave who wants to improve continuity of his teaching and research program.
Moreover, it is not argued that offering such a course for continuity of someone's teaching/research program is an abuse. It is just argued that it could be a precedent for some abuse. But, what abusive motivation might there be? Arguing that something should not be done now because it might possibly be a precedent for abuse later, when we don't have any idea what that abuse might be, is sheer speculation, and not a very strong reason to deny this request.