perm filename LETTER.TXT[1,RWF]5 blob
sn#833127 filedate 1987-01-23 generic text, type C, neo UTF8
COMMENT ⊗ VALID 00009 PAGES
C REC PAGE DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002 STANFORD UNIVERSITY-SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING
C00008 00003 \input buslet
C00017 00004 \magnification =\magstephalf
C00021 00005 \input buslet
C00023 00006 \magnification =\magstephalf
C00030 00007 \magnification =\magstephalf
C00033 00008 \magnification =\magstephalf
C00035 00009 \magnification =\magstephalf
C00039 ENDMK
C⊗;
STANFORD UNIVERSITY-SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING
ANNUAL FACULTY REPORT FOR ACADEMIC YEAR 1985-86
Dear Colleague,
It is time again for a Faculty Report. This office finds it very
useful to have the information outlined below, and I appreciate your
taking time to fill out the form carefully. I realize that this represents
only a summary of your contributions to the School and misses completely
your goodwill and spirit which are equally important to our mission.
Please give this completed form to your departmental secretary by December
1, 1986. Thanks for your help with this chore and for your contributions
to the School and the University.
Cordially,
Jim Gibbons
Dean
(Please note: Information requested pertains to the period 9/1/85 to 8/31/86
only.)
Name ←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
Last First Middle
Academic Rank ←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
Department ←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
Teaching - Please indicate by quarter, course title, number of units and
enrollment. Also include course or curriculum development, computer
education software tutorials, specially prepared television presentations
or other relevant work.
Academic Advising
1. Number of freshman advisees. ←←←←←←←←←←
2. Number of other undergraduate advisees.←←←←←←←←←←
3. Number of graduate advisees. ←←←←←←←←←←
Supervision of Ph.D Candidates
1. Number of students for which you
are principal dissertation advisor. ←←←←←←←←←←
2. Number of students for which you are
on reading committee. ←←←←←←←←←←
Publications (Please indicate nature of work, such as books, monographs,
journals, technical reports, etc., giving title, date, pages and
publisher or issuing agency. Include only items actually published and
for archival journals include papers accepted for publication. Do not
include papers submitted for publication.)
Books and contributions to books.
Archival Journal Articles
Refereed Symposia Publications.
Technical Reports.
Presentations at Meetings and Symposia.
Research Projects
Project title and Names of Principal Approx. annual
Funding Source and co-Principal dollar value of
Investigators.(if project for which
any). you are responsible.
University Services Other Than Teaching and Research. (Include administrative
duties and other committee work.)
Professional Activities Outside the University. (Include offices in
professional organizations, services to government agencies or industry,
editorship of journals, invited presentations, and outside administrative
or public service.)
Honors and Awards
Other. (Describe below any relevant activities or make any comments that
do not fit under previous categories.)
-------
-------
-------
\input buslet
%another letter.file
\def \ip#1{\par\penalty-1000\noindent\hangindent20pt\hangafter1
\hbox to 20pt{#1\hfill}\ignorespaces}
\memoto Nils Nilsson
\from Robert W. Floyd
\subject ``Better Teaching''
\body
%Put your letter here.
This is my response to the memo from Bob Eustis to Nils Nilsson about
quality of teaching, as evaluated by looking at numbers on a computer
printout. During the winter quarter, I had severe bronchitis for all
but the first week of the quarter. I only missed one class, but as the
illness continued I was not able to do more than the minimum to keep
CS262 going. I had no teaching assistant or grader. Not surprisingly,
the class got terrible ratings.
Some years ago, a visiting professor got comparably bad ratings on a
computer science course. The next quarter the man was dead. The computer
never noticed he was gone.
I was disappointed by the student reponse to CS254, my Formal Languages
and Computability course in the spring. Compare my absolute and
percentile rankings with CS106H, the introductory computer programming
course I taught in the fall.
\vskip .125in
$$\vcenter{
\halign{
#\hfil\quad&\hfil#\qquad&\hfil#\hfil\qquad&\hfil#\qquad&\hfil#\hfil\cr
&\multispan2\hfill CS254\phantom{132}\hfill%
&\multispan2 \hfill CS106H\phantom{M}\hfill\cr
Question&Score&Percentile&Score&Percentile\cr
1 (Organization\cr
and Preparation)&2.98&16&2.13&42?\cr
2 (Explanations)&3.14&\phantom{1}8&2.38&47?\cr
6 (Responsiveness to\cr
class difficulty)&3.83&\phantom{1}4&2.00&54?\cr
11 (Fairness of tests, etc.)&3.18&\phantom{1}4&1.75&92?\cr
13 (Overall value\cr
of course)&3.38&\phantom{1}4&1.75&77?\cr
14 (Overall rating\cr
of instructor)&3.43&\phantom{1}8&2.00&42?\cr}}$$
\vskip .125in
What happened between fall and spring? Did I forget how to give
explanations of average clarity in three months? Did I change from
being an exceptionally fair grader to being a near-monster?
Didn't any of my colleagues notice my mental deterioration and
suggest a CAT scan?
In fact, I was always carefully prepared for my lectures. I
distributed about 100 pages of computer-typeset notes, of which
samples are attached; they will become a book including major
improvements of standard results and proofs. When I found that
some students were in difficulties, I conducted several hours of
help sessions, and had my TAs do the same. The content of the
course is fundamental to the design of compilers and text processors.
Then why did the course get such terrible ratings?
$\bullet$ It is a semi-required course for the MSCS degree, and is
required in several specializations. Many computer science students
acknowledge that they detest mathematics. The course is unabashedly
abstract and mathematical.
$\bullet$ Support was understaffed and underqualified. One TA and my
grader were themselves taking the course. The other TA was so bad
we had to redo much of his grading. At one point, their grading
fell three weeks behind, and nobody told me.
$\bullet$ There appears to be resentment that I give tests on which
there is usually a very broad numerical distribution. There was
probably resentment about a midterm question where I gave an
explicitly non-standard definition of a term, and asked a question
about it. Many students located in the textbook an answer that
was only true for the textbook definition, and paraphrased or referenced
it. This gave me no basis to assign a positive score. It was in no
way a trick question, but I suspect that many students felt unfairly
treated.
$\bullet$ In their written comments on the course, some students
mention my style of speech. ``A boring monotone'' is typical.
Sorry, folks, I speak as I speak. Be glad I don't stutter any
more. I can certify from experience years ago that Stanford
students, protected by the anonymity of course evaluations,
are ferocious toward anyone (not just me) with a speech impairment.
Notice that the rating of CS106H rates the course at 77\%, and rates
me at 42\%, although the course is almost entirely my material.
My spring lectures are available on video tape for inspection by
any evaluator of my performance who takes that task seriously
enough to look at anything but my Nielsen ratings, or by any
colleague who would care to see if my lectures have remediable
faults. My course notes are also available for inspection;
I have encouraged my colleagues and administrative evaluators
to examine them, without much success.
I have never seen evidence that evaluations, on the whole, are
more than a popularity contest. Their anonymity encourages the
venting of frustrations at the professor's expense. No newspaper
will print an unsigned letter. No modern court will accept anonymous
testimony. In most areas of our lives, we call anonymous writings
graffiti, and paint over them.
Be assured, I take my work seriously. I do the best I know how
at anything I do, to meet my own standards for myself. Eustis
suggests discussion with a ``successful teacher,'' and using the
services of the Center for Teaching and Learning. Anyone who
suggests that I am an unsuccessful teacher should
say it to my face and be prepared to back it up.
\bigskip
RWF/rfn
%\smallskip
%Enclosure: U.N.\ Fellowship award letter
%\smallskip
%cc: Mary Lou Allen
%\smallskip
%\ps
%P.S.: whatever you wish to say here
\endletter
\end
\magnification =\magstephalf
\input buslet
\def\disleft#1:#2:#3\par{\par\hangindent#1\noindent
\hbox to #1{#2 \hfill \hskip .1em}\ignorespaces#3\par}
\def\display#1:#2:#3\par{\par\hangindent #1 \noindent
\hbox to #1{\hfill #2 \hskip .1em}\ignorespaces#3 \par}
\def\adx#1:#2\par{\par\halign{\hskip #1##\hfill\cr #2}\par}
\rwflet
\vskip 30pt
\address
Prof.~Robert E.~Tarjan
Dept.~of Computer Science
Princeton University
Princeton, NJ 08544
\body
Dear Bob:
I hear that you have been selected for the Turing award. I only wonder
that it took them so long.
Many recipients of the award have chosen in their lecture to review
the work that led to the award. There is nothing wrong with that,
though some of the writers for {\it Science} magazine probably do it
better than most of us can do for ourselves. I chose to use my
moment in the spotlight to say what I could to change the practice
of our profession most beneficially. Minsky was another who chose
that route. Give it a thought. You may come to greater prizes, but
you may never have a better chance to preach an elegant sermon to
a respectful audience.
Among the things I am most proud of in my career are several
distinguished doctoral dissertations in which I played an
advisory part.
I find now that your generation of researchers has a level of training,
especially in mathematics, that I can't match and haven't the
stamina to keep up with. In fact, I'm looking at concentrating my
efforts on less abstract tasks: software ideas, cleaning up and
generalizing the fundamental results in computability and formal
languages. I'm glad I had something to do with setting the process
in motion.
\closing
Congratulations,
Bob
\annotations
RWF/rfn
%\smallskip
%Enclosure
%\smallskip
%cc: Matthew Kahn
%\smallskip
%\ps
%P.S.: whatever you wish to say here
\endletter
\makelabel
\end
\input buslet
%another letter.file
\def \ip#1{\par\penalty-1000\noindent\hangindent20pt\hangafter1
\hbox to 20pt{#1\hfill}\ignorespaces}
\memoto Whomever
\from Robert W. Floyd
\subject Courses and Degrees
\body
%Put your letter here.
Someone garbled the prerequisites of CS254. ``Familiarity'' should not be
capitalized; ``i.e.'' should be ``e.g.,'' and ``(106)'' once should have
been ``(160),'' but now should be ``(Philosophy 159).'' There should be
no comma after B. Whoever mangled my description makes me look like an
idiot, and should be shot.
\bigskip
RWF/rfn
%\smallskip
%Enclosure: U.N.\ Fellowship award letter
%\smallskip
%cc: Mary Lou Allen
%\smallskip
%\ps
%P.S.: whatever you wish to say here
\endletter
\end
\magnification =\magstephalf
\input buslet
\def\disleft#1:#2:#3\par{\par\hangindent#1\noindent
\hbox to #1{#2 \hfill \hskip .1em}\ignorespaces#3\par}
\def\display#1:#2:#3\par{\par\hangindent #1 \noindent
\hbox to #1{\hfill #2 \hskip .1em}\ignorespaces#3 \par}
\def\adx#1:#2\par{\par\halign{\hskip #1##\hfill\cr #2}\par}
\rwflet
\vskip 30pt
\address
American Academy of Arts and Sciences
Norton's Woods
136 Irving Street
Cambridge, MA 02138
\vskip 5pt
Attn: Committee on membership
\body
Gentlefolk:
I propose membership for Gina Bari Kolata, known to me for her work as a
journalist of science, medicine, technology, and their impact on public
affairs. She does not seem to fit the Academy's membership categories,
but if her subject matter were set in the past we would surely call it
history of science and treat it with full respect.
Gina Kolata has written for Science magazine since before I began
reading it about fifteen years ago. I gradually came to realize that
a large fraction of the articles on scientific subjects that I found
worthy of preserving were written by Kolata. In the middle l970s I
followed closely the early development of the difficult ${\rm P=NP}$
problem in computer science. In reporting on a major conference
where ${\rm P=NP}$ was a hot new topic, Kolata interviewed the heavyweights
of the subject and summarized their reasoning with great care, doing
full justice to the rigorous logic of the subject. I regret that I
did not save the article.
She is knowledgeable in a broad range of scientific subjects. Among
those where she has written in depth:
In medicine and medical genetics, recent research locating a genetic
marker for Huntington's disease. Apparent connection between Alzheimer's
disease and Down's syndrome. Evidence for simple inheritance of manic
depression. Blindness of prematurity, inheritability of myopia, gene
deactiviation by methlation, genetic screening, agricultural genetic
engineering, evaluation of medical procedures for cost-effectiveness,
parasitology, biological clocks.
In application of advanced mathematics, public key cryptosystems
and related work in factoring and primality testing. High speed
methods for computer arithmetic, linear equations, and linear
programming. Probabilistic algorithms. Polynomial time algorithms.
In pure mathematics, p-adic numbers and the proof of the Bieberbach
conjecture. Evidence of sex linkage of high-mathematical talent.
In statistics, quantitative evidence for Shakespearean authorship
of an anonymous Elizabethan poem. Applications to psychic and
ESP studies.
Other articles from my own collection deal with the doubtful
authenticity of cannibalism, several technology-public policy
questions, and molecular biology.
The copies of Kolata articles I am enclosing do not begin to
be a complete or a best-chosen portfolio. They represent the
survival, over the course of the past nine years, of articles
that so caught my attention that I preserved them. Nonetheless,
I think anyone knowledgeable in science who reads half a dozen
of the articles I have marked with stars will recognize serious
journalism at its best. I remark especially the careful treatment
of scientific debate, with proponents of conflicting ideas well
described and identified, their arguments treated fully, carefully,
and sympathetically. Kolata also handles the role of hypothesis
and conjecture in science very well.
I am, by copy of this letter, requesting supporting letters from
computer scientists, combinatorialists,
and statisticians of repute who, I believe, respect
Kolata's reportage of their work.
\closing
Sincerely yours,
Robert W.~Floyd
\annotations
RWF/rfn
\smallskip
Enclosures
\smallskip
cc:\hfil\break
Ronald Graham\par\noindent
Brad Efron\par\noindent
Persi Diaconis\par\noindent
Ron Rivest\par\noindent
Len Adleman\par\noindent
Albert Meyer
%\smallskip
%\ps
%P.S.: whatever you wish to say here
\endletter
\makelabel
\end
\magnification =\magstephalf
\input buslet
\def\disleft#1:#2:#3\par{\par\hangindent#1\noindent
\hbox to #1{#2 \hfill \hskip .1em}\ignorespaces#3\par}
\def\display#1:#2:#3\par{\par\hangindent #1 \noindent
\hbox to #1{\hfill #2 \hskip .1em}\ignorespaces#3 \par}
\def\adx#1:#2\par{\par\halign{\hskip #1##\hfill\cr #2}\par}
\rwflet
\vskip 30pt
\address
\body
%Dear
Stefan Sharkansky took my course on Sorting and Searching, out of
Knuth v.3, last winter. He had a top 95 on the takehome midterm; the
next grade was 85. On the takehome final I promised an A to anyone
who got three problems (out of nine) substantially right. There
were higher scores than his, mainly through accumulation of partial
credit, but several of his solutions were superb: elegant, motivated,
and efficient solutions to problems requiring three or four pages
of combinatorial identities, generating functions, transformations
of recurrence relations, and all that. (The higher scores were made
by a good computer science Ph.D.~student, and another M.S.~student
whom I would also enthusastically admit to our Ph.D.~program.)
He was my TA in the spring, in a formal languages and computability
course based on Hopcroft and Ullman. Although he was learning the
material at the same time, he was a very capable TA to whom I was
able to delegate much responsibility for composing and reviewing
problems and solutions.
Stefan has good mathematical instincts, and should do very well
in the deductive side of computer science research, or in an
applied math program. I see no reason that he would not be a
credit to any Ph.D.~program.
\closing
Sincerely yours,
Robert W.~Floyd
\annotations
RWF/rfn
%\smallskip
%Enclosure
%\smallskip
%cc: Matthew Kahn
%\smallskip
%\ps
%P.S.: whatever you wish to say here
\endletter
\makelabel
\end
\magnification =\magstephalf
\input buslet
\def\disleft#1:#2:#3\par{\par\hangindent#1\noindent
\hbox to #1{#2 \hfill \hskip .1em}\ignorespaces#3\par}
\def\display#1:#2:#3\par{\par\hangindent #1 \noindent
\hbox to #1{\hfill #2 \hskip .1em}\ignorespaces#3 \par}
\def\adx#1:#2\par{\par\halign{\hskip #1##\hfill\cr #2}\par}
\rwflet
\vskip 30pt
\address
\body
%Dear
Jay Lao has taken two of my courses: Sorting and Searching, out of
Knuth v.3, and Formal Languages, out of Hopcroft and Ullman.
In the former, a class mainly of computer science MS students,
his work was a shade below the class average, and I gave him a
B. In the latter, on both exams he ranked fifth or sixth out of
more than eighty students, which indicates to me that he is able
to do very good mathematical computer science.
Unfortunately, he is a bit shy, and I don't really know him well,
nor do I have any memory of the details of his work that would
let me make a qualitative assessment.
\closing
Sincerely yours,
Robert W.~Floyd
\annotations
RWF/rfn
%\smallskip
%Enclosure
%\smallskip
%cc: Matthew Kahn
%\smallskip
%\ps
%P.S.: whatever you wish to say here
\endletter
\makelabel
\end
\magnification =\magstephalf
\input buslet
\def\disleft#1:#2:#3\par{\par\hangindent#1\noindent
\hbox to #1{#2 \hfill \hskip .1em}\ignorespaces#3\par}
\def\display#1:#2:#3\par{\par\hangindent #1 \noindent
\hbox to #1{\hfill #2 \hskip .1em}\ignorespaces#3 \par}
\def\adx#1:#2\par{\par\halign{\hskip #1##\hfill\cr #2}\par}
\rwflet
\vskip 30pt
\address
Dr. Robert L.~Ashenhurst
The University of Chicago
1101 East 58th Street
Chicago, IL 60637
\body
Dear Bob:
Can you bring me up to date on the ACM Turing Award lectures collection?
Specifically, is it past the point where I could add a paragraph or two?
\closing
Sincerely yours,
Robert W.~Floyd
\annotations
RWF/rfn
%\smallskip
%Enclosure
%\smallskip
%cc: Matthew Kahn
%\smallskip
%\ps
%P.S.: whatever you wish to say here
\endletter
\makelabel
\end