Minutes GAC Nov. 13, 2015 Attendance: Christara, Cook, Jepson, Liu, Marbach, Penn, Sabet, Spooner Regrets: Vivian Hwang 1. [Sponsor ACG] Whether non-DCS graduate courses should be allowed to count towards MSc and PhD breadth, such as various ECE, Math, and Stats courses. If this is to be allowed, what are appropriate criteria and what is the process for making such a decision? CURRENT SPECIFICATION of the MSc/PhD BREADTH REQUIREMENTS: For the current MSc/PhD breadth rules see the corresponding parts of the graduate handbooks: MSc: http://www.cs.toronto.edu/dcs/MSc_2015-16.pdf PhD: http://www.cs.toronto.edu/dcs/PhD_2015-16.pdf BACKGROUND: For the original (May 2010) document, see: http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~jepson/gac/2015-16/breadthReqFinal.pdf The intended purpose of DCS's graduate MSc/PhD breadth requirements is to ensure that successful graduates have a sufficiently broad knowledge of Computer Science, at the level of graduate courses in the subject, to warrant being granted that degree. This knowledge is to be certified by the the completion of sufficiently strong graduate courses. A minimal grade is required. For CSC courses the minimal grade is a B-. The current MSc and PhD breadth rules are clear cut and simple to apply. They define whether a specific set of courses are suitable for breadth. Moreover, they allow DCS faculty to avoid making subjective decisions about whether the contents of courses from other departments or other universities are suitable for breadth credits. (Subjective decisions about suitable methodological and research area credits for our own CSC grad courses still need to be made.) However this simplicity is obtained at a cost of forcing some irrational decisions. For example, a course from another department (e.g., Networking or Software Eng courses in ECE, Machine Learning courses in Stats) may provide a similar range and depth of topics as a current or potential DCS course in that area. However, such a course does not contribute to the current breadth requirements, independently of the course content. (Since, according to the current breadth specification, only CSC courses contribute to graduate breadth.) A second example is a student who took a graduate-only CSC course (e.g., CSC 2539: Topics in Computer Vision), while still an undergrad, does not get graduate breadth credit for this course. This is true despite the course instructors arguing that this student was required to do the same work as the graduate students in the class, that they were marked on the same scale, or even that this particular student excelled in the class when compared to their graduate peers. (Since, by the current specification, no courses taken as part of an undergrad degree contribute to graduate breadth.) In a similar vein, no courses taken as part of a completed graduate degree, say in ECE or Math, can be considered for MSc breadth. Such decisions are not in alignment with the basic coin of breadth requirements, which is the certified completion of graduate course content that is relevant to CS. The May 2010 breadth document (see the above link to breadthReqFinal.pdf) has two notes that are specifically relevant to these issue: 1. (p2) "Can courses from outside our department be used to fulfill one of the methodologies? No. We require a mechanism to ensure that the course is satisfying what we would consider breadth in the appropriate methodology. ... We could revisit this point after a couple years to determine if we want to make some exceptions, to be approved by the Graduate Affairs Committee." 2. (p3) "Can M.Sc. students receive credit for courses taken prior to entering the program? No. The methodologies requirement is quite loose, as a student need only take 2 courses outside of his/her primary research methodology, and the methodologies are broadly defined. So we do not see it as too onerous for a student to have to take a single course in two of his/her non-primary methodologies." The time has come to revisit these decisions. PROPOSAL: A student together with their supervisor can propose to the Associate Chair, Graduate (ACG) that a particular offering of a graduate course from another department or university be considered for breadth credits. A detailed course description is required (similar to what is currently required for breadth asssessment from students entering our PhD program with a MSc degree from elsewhere), along with a rationale for why this course should be considered sufficient for breadth credit in one of the specific research areas and/or specific methodologies. The ACG then seeks the opinion of the research group most closely aligned with the course content (i.e., one of the "Research Areas" 1 through 15 currently listed in the breadth specification, see Appendix B of http://www.cs.toronto.edu/dcs/GradOverview_2015-16.pdf ). The faculty in the research group are asked if the course offering should be considered suitable for breadth in their research area and, if so, they are asked to recommend the appropriate methodology. Given substantial support and no dissenting views from the faculty in the research group, the ACG brings the proposal to the Grad Affairs Committee for final approval. The student's mark in the course must be the equivalent of at least a B- in order to qualify for a breadth credit. Initially these decisions will be based on specific offerings of courses rather than a blanket decision to provide breadth for a specific course number indendently of the annual variations of that course. To be most useful, decisions would need to be made by early in a term. Therefore the GAC (or at least the faculty on the GAC) would need to consider requests either before the beginning of a new term or within the first week of the new term. ========= The were dissenting views, as listed below: The rationale for counting a course in a methodology is unclear. The current assignment of the courses into methodologies is itself unclear in some cases, and leaving the individual research groups to make the recommendation of a suitable methodology for an outside course can be expected to further blur the boundaries between methodologies. Decisions are to be made by a research group (subject to the GAC's approval). No specification for the size of that research group is made here. Is one individual enough (i.e., from a research group with exactly one faculty member)? Additionally, one faculty member may be part of many research groups, which would mean they have more say in recommending breadth categories. If the proposal goes ahead, it will put lots of pressure to the ACG and to the GAC to do things in the first week of classes. [One GAC member] finds that this is not implementable. In the past, when we had the so-called "breadth evaluators" (the faculty from each research area, when we only had 7 areas, who signed those green forms ...), we did not have such pressure. The students knew that it may take 2-3 weeks to go around to collect the signatures and had to make their decisions based on that. Of course, one may obtain the decision whether a course offering counts as breadth later in the term, and in the next term adjust the course registrations accordingly.