|fu^§,J)§J Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305

CAROLYN TAJNAIDepartment Secrotnry Telephone:Department

of

Computer

Science

(416) 4i.T-33T4

April 28, 1980

To: CSD Faculty

From: Carolyn Tajnai

Subject: Minutes of the faculty meeting of April 1, 1980

Attending:

Feigenbaum, Baskett, Dantzig, Floyd, Genesereth, Gorin, Knuth, Lenat, Manna, McCluskey,Oliger, Schreiber, Tarjan, Wiederhold. Student Representatives: Jock Mackinlay, SteveNash. Staff: Betty Scott, Carolyn Tajnai. On leave: Buchanan, Golub, Herriot, McCarthy.Absent: Winograd, Yao

1.) Professor Feigenbaum announced that Joe Oliger was promoted to Associate Professorwith Tenure.

2.) Degree candidates were presented by Carolyn Tajnai. Professor Tarjan moved that theybe approved; Professor Feigenbaum seconded; passed unanimously.

Master of ScienceBaxter, Nicholas EdwardBeil, Thomas IrvinGilbert, John CharlesWellander, Patrick Thomas

Master of Science: Computer EngineeringErbilgin, BulentFernandez-Pardon, MarioHeartney, Francis J.Huang, Wen-HerHunt, Victor BruceLin, Bertrand I-PengVan Sickel, Peter Lincoln

Doctor of Philosophy

Stefik,

Mark J.

-\

Page 2

3.) Professors Oliger and Tarjan, representing the Comprehensive Examination Committee,proposed that the following statement be added to the description of the M.S. Program inC.S.

Completion of the M.S. Program in CS. typicaly requires six quarters of residence at

Stanford. It is possible for students who enter with preparation fully equivalent toStanford courses Stat. ll6, Math. 113 and ISO, and C.S. 107, 111 and 112 to complete theprogram in one calendar year (Jt quarters).

The intention of the Committee is that students come here prepared to stay long enoughto complete the degree in its entirety - including the comprehensive exam - and therebyreduce the pressure to administer this exam off campus.

Professor Tarjan moved that the proposal be accepted; Professors Baskett and Wiederholdseconded; the motion passed. .Professor Knuth commended the Comprehensive Committee on the fine job they have donethis academic year.

The second recommendation of the Comprehensive Committee is as follows:

It is proposed that the written comprehensive exam berestructured. The current six areas

of the written comprehensive (Algorithms and data structures, A.1., Hardware, N.A.,Programming languages and systems, and Theory of Computation) do not match facultyand student interests and disect our field along unduly artificial lines. The proposedareas are: Algorithms and data structures, A. 1., Hardware systems, N.A., Software sys-tems, and Theory of computation. It is also envisioned that this will allow us to deal withthe hardware area in a more satisfactory and realistic way. The Hardware Systems areawould cover the current Hardware material, or an improved version of it, and materialdrawn from the current operating systems material. There is now existing overlap intopics such as queing theory and computer organization, e.g., computer addressing andpaging management. The software Systems area would cover programming, languagesand compilers, as well as related data structures.

Professor Tarjan moved that this proposal be accepted; Professor Oliger seconded; motionpassed.

The third recommendation of the Comprehensive Committee is as follows:

It is proposed that the comprehensive programming exam be replaced by a programmingproject degree requirement. We note two problems of the present system: the best pro-grams arc often of poor quality, and our computing resources make it difficult to ad-minister the exam. We also recognize the. desirability of having our students demonstratethe ability to carry out a substantial programming project. Our M.S. students are al-ready required to complete a C.S. 293project--we suggest that this be beefed up, also berequired of our Ph.D. students, and take the place of the current programming exam.

t

Page 3

Our C.S. 293 would only increase by the number of Ph.D. students and these programsand related documents could be useful for students or faculty. These projects wouldneed to have the same general features required of present programming exams suchas nontrivial data structures and algorithms. A passing project would also be expectedto satisfy criteria related to programming style and documentation much as is nowdone for the programming exam. Quality control could be achieved by requiring thatthe Comprehensive Exam Committee review the projects and decide whether or not theypass at the appropriate level.

After much discussion, the third recommendation was returned to the Comprehensive Com-

mittee for further study. The sentiment of the faculty is "to abolish the programmingpart of the comprehensive and to replace it by the student submitting a portfolio of pro-

grams, which has been approved by an Academic Council Member, for the evaluation of theComprehensive Committee." It was further stated that the work must be done at Stanford.

4.) Salaries for 1980-81. The normal range for Faculty salary increases for 1980-81 is 9 to10%. Salaries for people on soft money (research associates) are targeted to increase 8 to

11%. There is a need to request higher salaries for research associates to be competitive.MIT has instituted a two-tier raise for the research associate ladder:

A. proposed 15%B. Standard 11%

People in charge of soft money should make their recommendations to Professor Feigenbaumimmediately.

5.) Department financial condition. C.S. faculty members are principal investigators forsix and one quarter million dollars a year. (Chemistry 2 1/2, EE 10 million) However, ourOperatingBudget, money from the Dean to run the Department, is $646,000, which includesabout $80,000 from Honors Cooperative funds. We are privately poor; publicly rich.

Expenses for teaching assistants are at an all-time high. The Operating Budget provides$40,000/year for lower introductory courses. The actual cost for teaching assistants is$100,000. We are -60K for TAs. The Department savings are currently negative.

The faculty salary, offset break-even point is 72%. 75% FTE is put into the budget; 25%from other sources. As a body the faculty is not recharging enough. Possibly no incentivefunds will be put into unrestricted accounts next year. It is the obligation of each facultymember to find money to recharge a minimum of 25%.

Our surfeit of department facilities is largely being paid out of public funds. Betty Scottand Ralph Gorin are preparing a plan.

Possible implementation:Sail cost center

pie slice75% sold

\.*,

.

Page 4

The Department should buy 25%.Score

The Department has 45% of SCORE. We were selling 10% to RAND, but we now have thefull use of the 45% slice.

ALTOS, DOVER, ETHERNET EXPENSES, ETHERTIP (ports) will have to be paid

Computer Facilities:

Maintenance, amortization of equipment, acquisition of truly common equipment. Wouldyou like the basis for distribution of costs to be - (1) Dollar amounts represented by people;or (2) number of people. Betty Scott said cost distribution based on the number of peopleis acceptable to auditors.

Some people are light users; some heavy. Possibly there should be a light user tax and aheavy user tax.

It was noted that Don Knuth uses SAIL and that the Numerical Analysis group primarilyuses SLAC.

The matter was tabled.

6.) Faculty slot in Systems. Forest Baskett and Don Knuth raised the issue of the Targetof Opportunity faculty slot in the systems area. A resume and recommendations for GuySteele were passed around. Ed Feigenbaum requested that immediate feedback be given tohim. Forest Baskett proposed that the Faculty empower Ed Feigenbaum to actively recruitGuy Steele. Don Knuth seconded and the motion passed.

7.) Building Dedication. Professor Feigenbaum gave a description of several ideas for theDedication of Margaret Jacks Hall. After a great deal of animated discussion, the planevolved as follows:Date: June 20 or 21

One-day affairOne hour for ceremonial: Gerald Lieberman will accept the building

for the University. Bill Miller will give the dedicatoryspeech. Mr. Hanna, on behalf of the Jacks family, will givethe building away.

ReceptionTourSome significant Computer Science talks - 4 hours

The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.