COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00002 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	\\M1BASL30\M2BASB30\M3BASI30
C00011 ENDMK
C⊗;
\\M1BASL30;\M2BASB30;\M3BASI30;
\F1\CJuly 30, 1981



Dr. Shu-Park Chan, Chairman
EECS Department
Santa Clara University
Santa Clara, Cal 95053


Dear Dr. Chan:

\J
I received your letter of termination yesterday; I had been forewarned
of its appearance by Dr. Davis. The following paragraphs  discuss some of
my reactions.

I have taught at six universities in the last twenty years, and have
never experienced a situation like that I observed
in the 1980-1981  school-year at Santa Clara University.
There are two issues that concern me: (1) the EECS program and (2) the
political climate. This second issue I will defer to those involved. I would
like to share my thoughts with you regarding  the first, in particular,
the graduate program in computer science.

I was under the impression that the Early-Bird Program was  meant to be a
graduate-level presentation, not a technical update service for industry.
This is a difficult task since the time
allocated to in-class presentation is about one-half
that demanded in undergraduate courses, and to compound the
problem, the student/teacher contact
time outside class is essentially nil.

I was also under the impression that the department was concerned about 
raising the quality of students in the program with a mandate
to "weed-out" the weaker participants. In my short experience
with these students, I believe that concern is well-founded. Many are
\F3not\F1 prepared to perform at the graduate level at least in the
areas of my expertise. 

If either of my impressions are in error, then we need go no further.

If you share these impressions, then I am puzzled that you emphasize
the "presents material clearly" rating in the student evaluations.
Let me explore my puzzlement and perhaps uncover the difficulty.

First, I \F3do\F1 expect a lot from my students. Computer science
is a difficult subject, not to be taken lightly. I would liken the
education of such an individual to that  of a surgeon: one does
not want slip-shod surgeons finding their way out of
medical schools; neither should one encourage
 sloppy practitioners of computation to find a haven in computer science.
Both kinds of individual can do substantial harm to the unsuspecting.
The attitudes of first-class medical schools are well-known; computer
science programs have a similar responsibility: to \F3demand\F1 excellence.

In my first course, Functional Programming, it was clear that several
students were mathematically ill-prepared for the material.
A choice: do you hold back those who can cope or do you proceed a-pace?
There was no question in my mind, since the material to be covered
represented about one-half of that I offered in a similar course at
San Jose State. Interestingly enough, four of those who took the
Functional Programming course, came back for more in the winter Artificial
Intelligence course, to be joined by about six other students.

On the basis of conversations with students in the fall, I prefaced the
AI course with a statement of policy: it was not a "survey course", but
a course for those expecting to deal with AI concepts and techniques in depth.
Several people dropped the course.

We had several illuminating discussions after class that term: what \F3is\F1
the Early Bird Program; what \F3should\F1 it be; how do you
generate a computer science "culture"  (to overcome the once-a-week
phenomenon). I think by the end of that course, we all had a better perspective
not just on advanced computer science, but Santa Clara University as well.
That was one reason for the ill-fated undergraduate EECS129 offering: an
excellent way to build a strong graduate program is to develop an undergraduate
cadre.

I \F3do\F1 care about course evaluation responses; however the issues
that  concern me  involve "instructor's knowledge of subject" and 
"stimulation to do independent thought".  Certainly in a graduate setting
these are more important than
"presents material clearly". The latter is subject to too many 
unanalyzed influences:
poor student preparation or quality, as well as teacher incompetence.
It is the former areas of "knowledge" and "independence"
 that prepare the student  for a graduate career.
So, assuming my impressions  of the
graduate program goals are correct --i.e., graduate-level, not survey courses;
and intensified quality control on 
students--  I am, alas, still puzzled that "clarity"  weighs so heavily.

I am troubled by this conflict --exellence versus \F3vox populi\F1.
 I could not teach
in an environment so precariously perched on the whims of the student populace.
Perhaps I'm fortunate to have found out the situation only after-the-fact.
However,
I would suggest that, in the future, temporary 
lecturers be made aware of your criteria for continued employment.

I do not wish to pursue the issue of my employment in the department
further.
Regardless, the quality and future of the program at
Santa Clara \F3does\F1 concern me greatly. If you would like to discuss these
matters further, please feel free to do so.
\.
\←L\→S\←R\-L\/'2;\+L\→L

Yours sincerely,


John R. Allen
18215 Bayview Dr.
Los Gatos Ca, 95030
(408) 353-3857

\←S\→L

CC:	Dr. Danielson
	Dr. Davis
	Dean Parden