Program Review Report
School of Computing and Information Sciences
College of Engineering & Computing
January 2009
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. 3
Response to the Recommendations from Previous Reviews ............................................................... 4
Program Description ............................................................................................................................ 5
Major Changes in Program .................................................................................................................. 8
Student Learning Outcomes ................................................................................................................. 9
Strengths that Support the Achievement of Program Goals............................................................... 10
Weaknesses that Impede the Achievement of Program Goals ........................................................... 13
Opportunities to Explore in the Achievement of Program Goals....................................................... 14
Threats to Overcome in the Achievement of Program Goals............................................................. 15
Budget ................................................................................................................................................ 16
Major Findings and Recommendations.............................................................................................. 19
APPENDICES.................................................................................................................................... 21
List of Tables
Table 1.
Table 2.
Table 3.
Table 4.
Table 5.
Table 6.
Table 7.
Table 8.
Table 9.
Table 10.
SCIS Student Headcount ......................................................................................................... 6
Comparison of CS/IT Upper Division Enrollment within SUS .............................................. 7
SCIS Degrees Awarded........................................................................................................... 7
2007-2008 Enrollment in SCIS UCC Courses ........................................................................ 8
2007-2008 Enrollment in SCIS Service Courses .................................................................... 8
SCIS Performance Since 2002 .............................................................................................. 11
SCIS Research Performance 2002-2003 vs. 2007-2008, on per-faculty basis ...................... 11
SCIS Performance Compared to National Average (CRA Taulbee Report)......................... 12
IT Job Growth Projections .................................................................................................... 14
Proposed Five-Year Budget Increments................................................................................ 17
2
1 Executive Summary
In the last program review prepared in Fall 2003 and presented in Spring 2004 (and which examined the
School of Computing and Information Science (SCIS) performance up to academic year 2002 – 2003),
the School’s faculty set the following lofty long-term goals:
1. To become the best research and education program in the field of computing in the South Florida
region
2. To become a top 3 research and education program in the State of Florida
3. To become the national leader in training minority students, particularly Hispanic students at all
levels
4. To become a leader at FIU for promoting interdisciplinary research and education to advance the
university’s strategic goal of becoming one of the top urban public research universities in the
nation
5. To become the preferred partner and a key provider of talent and innovation to industry
6. Ultimately, to become a top 50 ranked CS/IT program in the nation.
goals.
Our undergraduate Computer Science program’s accreditation was reaffirmed with the highest rating by
ABET; in terms of student headcount at the BS, MS and Ph.D. levels we are one of the largest, if not the
largest, computing and IT programs in the Florida State University System (SUS), generating over 20%
of the entire SUS undergraduate graduates in this critically important field; we rank eighth in the entire
nation in degree production (among computing programs in engineering); our undergraduate students are
actively engaged in sponsored research projects, and are sought out by industry giants such as IBM and
Microsoft.
Our graduate and research programs have had remarkable success: We have increased the School’s Ph.D.
enrollment by 85% over five years and the Ph.D. graduation rate by 300% (the most recent four-year
period, compared to the four-year period prior to our last review), and the quality of our program is
corroborated by the fact that our Ph.D. graduates have gone on to become tenure-track faculty members at
ranked research universities and highly-selective leading research centers. Moreover, among the hundreds
of doctoral programs nationwide, SCIS by itself accounts for approximately 13% of all Hispanic Ph.D.
students.
The School’s external research funding has more than doubled, from $1.33 million to $2.79 million, and
the School is now consistently one of the top two funded research programs in the SUS, in terms of perfaculty annual external funding. A significant majority of our tenured and tenure track faculty are now
research active and the majority are currently PI or Co-PIs of at least one NSF grant. Our junior faculty
has received four CAREER awards. We have almost doubled the number of graduate assistantships in
SCIS, with nearly all of the increase coming from C&G funding. We have increased the overall number
of publications by 72%. More importantly, we have increased the annual number of research papers in
premier journals and proceedings by 233%, and our faculty members are now well-represented on
conference program committees.
The School’s research is highly interdisciplinary, and our faculty has successfully developed, individually
and collectively, a broad range of collaborations within FIU, with industry and our peers nationally and
3
internationally, in a variety of disciplines, such as biology, hurricane and disaster mitigation, earth
science, business, computer engineering, biomedical engineering, construction management, physics,
mathematics, statistics, etc. We have built highly successful and rewarding industry and international
partnerships from the ground up, with partners including leading universities and research centers in the
U.S., Mexico, Argentina, Spain, China, India, Japan and other countries. This is a key factor in our
success in research and funding.
We have achieved our growth and advancement with a minimal amount of resources compared to our
peers in the State and in the nation. Equally important, as the data in this report show, the transformative
growths in quality and productivity have been achieved with a relatively flat size of the faculty. In other
words, our growth is achieved via productivity gains, rather than as a result of a simple increase in the
size of the organization. Moreover, none of these improvements are one-time events, but rather rapid and
consistent progress, year after year. Along the way, we have transformed SCIS into a highly dynamic
academic organization with a highly synergistic, collegial, confident and proactive faculty and staff team,
a hallmark of a highly dynamic and successful academic program.
We are confident that we are well on our way toward meeting our sixth and most challenging goal, of
becoming a top-50 ranked CS/IT program. Our School is well positioned to take advantage of this
national trend and favorable environmental factors to become a national leader in this critically important
area, to become an FIU success story and help to serve and drive the university’s strategic goals. Our
faculty and staff are working tirelessly and intelligently toward this end. However, we cannot do it alone.
To successfully accomplish the strategic vision listed above, the attention, support and resources from the
university administration, as well as our School’s representation at the university level, are indispensable.
We urge the university administration to provide them.
This Self Study was prepared by a committee consisting of Yi Deng, Dean of SCIS and Associate Dean
Masoud Milani, Prof. Xudong He who is Graduate Program Director, Scott Graham who is Research
Coordinator, and Prof. Mark Weiss who is Chair of the School’s Human Resource Committee, along with
input from the faculty.
2 Response to the Recommendations from Previous Reviews
Recommendation 1. Develop a strategic plan that identifies focus areas for the
School. Use that plan to direct faculty hiring.
We have established three focus areas or clusters for the School:
a) Data Management and Engineering
b) Software Engineering and Distributed Computing
c) (Multidisciplinary) Informatics.
Our faculty hiring has consistently followed the principle that balances the need to develop critical mass
in focus areas and the need to ensure faculty expertise in fundamental areas that are essential for a large
scale CS/IT program like ours. We have also developed, and consistently executed, effective strategies for
Ph.D. program growth, training and production, external research funding, streamlined and tiered research
programs, faculty development, holistic quality improvement of education programs and student
placement, program visibility and marketing, and broad partnership and support system development.
Recommendation 2. Evaluate the return on investment of off-campus degree
programs toward the one goal of the School – a top 50 School of Computer
Science.
All the School’s off-campus degree programs have been concluded and terminated.
4
Recommendation 3. Develop a specific plan to address the issue of retention of
Ph.D. students.
We have successfully developed and implemented a plan for Ph.D. student retention, increased graduation
rate, and placement. Our strategy includes the following aspects:
a) Increase the quality of faculty research and faculty supervision of Ph.D. students;
b) Significantly increase the stipend of graduate assistants, shift most of the financial support to
Ph.D. students, and in the meantime, institute rigorous annual graduate assistant performance
review in such a way to reward excellence and create competition;
c) Replace the course-based Ph.D. qualifier exam with a research-oriented Ph.D. candidacy exam to
immerse Ph.D. students in research as early as possible;
d) Develop success stories of Ph.D. graduates so as to increase the collective confidence among our
students of the quality of our programs;
e) Aggressively pursue external research funding to broaden support for Ph.D. students.
All of these components of our plan focus on the simple goal of making our Ph.D. graduates more
competitive. As a result, we have significantly improved our School’s Ph.D. graduate placement, and
Ph.D. student attrition is no longer a significant problem. This is the core reason for the growth of our
Ph.D. enrollment and graduation rate.
Recommendation 4. Track citation rates for faculty and publication rates in high
impact journals along with the annual NSF reports on federal funding in order to
have continuing feedback on progress toward the top 50 classification.
While we have not specifically tracked citation rates, we have achieved tremendous improvement in the
quantity and quality of the School’s research publications, particularly in terms of top journal and
conference publications, as cited in the last section. It is crucial to note that in the field of Computer
Science, where results can become obsolete in the submission-to-publication time frame normally
associated with journals, by necessity top conference papers are considered as prestigious as top journal
papers, with acceptance ratios ranging from 10 – 25%. We have done a superb job in competitive research
funding, not only in terms of the amount, but also in terms of quality and prestige. 63% of our grants are
from the NSF and we are now leading the SUS in terms of per-faculty annual external research funding.
Recommendation 5. Develop a plan for raising revenues to support the goal of
becoming a top 50 program, realistically assessing the outlook for state funding.
See Section 6 for our accomplishments in terms of external research funding, which is the result of an
effective plan and execution. In addition, our School has averaged $1.3 million annually in terms of
industry in-kind donations/grants.
3 Program Description
SCIS offers BS, MS and Ph.D. degree programs in Computer Science and BS and BA degrees in
Information Technology serving 766 (excluding 262 lower division) students as shown in Table 1. In
addition, the Five Year Accelerated BS/MS Degree program allows BS students to seamlessly complete
the requirements of both BS and MS degrees within 5 years. The SCIS faculty recognizes the importance
of Research Experience for Undergraduates (REU) as a means to increase student retention and to
generate interest in pursuing graduate work among undergraduate students and has integrated REU into
all their research activities. All our REU activities are supported by C&G funds. More specifically, we
have been an NSF REU site during the past three years; our research centers including NSF Partnership
for International Research and Education (PIRE) and Center for Research Excellence in Science and
Technology (CREST) routinely provide research positions to undergraduates and many of our individual
faculty research grants have REU supplements.
5
Table 1.
SCIS Student Headcount
Fall 02 Fall 03 Fall 04 Fall 05 Fall 06
Undergraduate Upper
517
527
Division
MS
72
54
Ph.D.
39
43
628
624
Total
*Includes students in M.S. China Program
Fall 07
5 year change
583
645
625
638
23.4%
129*
60
772
54
61
740
54
66
745
56
72
766
-22.2%
84.6%
22.0%
Note that the data in Table 1 include only the SCIS upper division and graduate (MS and Ph.D. Fall
enrollments). For Fall 2007 semester SCSI had 262 lower division students. With the lower division
enrollment, the total Fall 2007 SCIS enrollment is 1028. The Unique Annual Student Headcount for
2007-08 is even higher at 1313 students. In addition, the School taught, in 2007-08, 1749 students in UCC
courses (Table 4) and 3498 in SCIS services courses (Table 5). In total, our school has served 6560
students in 2007-08, representing approximately 16% of the total student population at FIU!
Further note that as the School’s ranking is in part a function of graduate student enrollment in its degree
programs, the graduate enrollment reported in Table 1 is the fall semester student headcount for MS and
Ph.D. programs. The headcounts are obtained by a unique count of enrolled MS and Ph.D. students in
each Fall semester. SCIS Grad 1 and Grad 2 enrollment as reported by FIU’s Office of Planning and
Institutional Effectiveness is shown below:
Grad 1
Grad 2
Fall 02
72
39
Fall 03
59
51
Fall 04
118
56
Fall 05
43
46
Fall 06
68
50
Fall 07
77
52
As shown in Table 1, despite a national decline of over 60% in undergraduate Computer Science
enrollments since 2000, and a similar decline within SUS institutions (see Table 2), SCIS undergraduate
student majors have increased by 23% in terms of headcount, which has established our school as the
largest CS/IT program within the SUS. As of Fall 2007, our undergraduate student population was
19.25% larger than UCF’s (the next largest computing enrollment in SUS) undergraduate CS/IT student
population (see Table 2). Our success in part is due to the foresight of our faculty who in the peak of a
nationwide CS enrollment, predicted the future shift in undergraduate computing education demands and
implemented the undergraduate program in Information Technology to serve the undergraduate student
population. Based on predictions of a similar shift in graduate computing education demands, our faculty
proposed an MS program in Information Technology in academic year 2004-05. Implementation of this
proposal in a timely manner will not only allow us to provide an avenue for graduate studies to our own
Information Technology graduates whose size is rapidly increasing (see Table 3) but will also put SCIS in
the forefront of graduate level Information Technology education at an early stage of its nationwide
implementation.
Our BS and MS students are employed in national and international companies such as IBM, Siemens,
Ultimate Software, Motorola, Boeing, Microsoft, Bank of America, Florida Power and Light, BellSouth,
Lucent, Harris Semiconductors, Goldman Sachs, GE, Beckman-Coulter, Alienware (now part of Dell),
Lennar Homes, Johnson & Johnson as well as US and State of Florida governmental agencies. IBM,
Microsoft and Ultimate Software actively recruit our students for permanent and paid internship positions.
IBM also actively recruits our students for the Extreme Blue internship program. Extreme Blue is IBM's
premier internship program where student interns become part of a team working on leading technology
6
to develop new products or services. For example, 18 Hispanic FIU students (including 4 selected for
IBM’s Extreme Blue Internship Program) were on paid internship positions at IBM sites in Almaden, CA,
Austin, TX, Kansas City, KS, Raleigh, NC, and Rochester, MN.
Among our 28 Ph.D. graduates in the past 4 years, 10 are employed as tenure-track assistant professors at
the University of Alabama at Birmingham, East Carolina University, University of Montana, Middle
Tennessee State University, South Dakota State University, and others. Our other Ph.D. graduates are
employed at major corporations such as Xerox Research, Microsoft, EBay, Amazon, and Beckman
Coulter. Appendix 12.1 provides a complete listing. Note that this listing terminates with Spring 2008
graduates, and thus does not include a Summer 2008 graduate who is now Assistant Professor at Colorado
School of the Mines.
Table 2.
FIU
FSU
UCF
UF
Comparison of CS/IT Upper Division Enrollment within SUS
Fall 02
Fall 07
5 year change
638
517
233
430*
785
535
316
69
23.4%
84.6%*
-31.9%
-78.2%
* There is clearly an anomaly in FSU data. FSU shows a one year increase from 0 students majoring in IT in 04-05
to 282 students in 06-05 Data Source: SUS Board of Governors
Table 3.
SCIS Degrees Awarded
02-03
03-04
04-05
05-06
Computer Science
107
108
91
103
Info. Technology
0
1
19
48
Bachelors
108
109
110
151
Masters
34
34
96*
25
Ph.D.
1
3
5
6
*Includes graduates of M.S. China Program
06-07
66
51
117
33
6
07-08
70
71
141
28
8
The SCIS graduate student headcounts have also experienced very healthy growth in recent years, with
especially robust growth in 2007-08. In particular, in Fall 2007, the number of Ph.D. students grew by 9%
over the previous year, and by 20% over Fall 2004. In addition, we have established SCIS as the national
leader in training Hispanic CS Ph.D. students with over one-third of our Ph.D. students being Hispanic.
Based on the Computing Research Association (CRA) survey, SCIS by itself represents over 13% of the
national enrollment of the top 155 research universities.
Such growth is the result of several factors. The first is our continued and sustained growth in external
research funding (see Section 6), which creates more graduate assistant positions. It remains a basic fact
that most graduate students require some sort of financial support, without which it is very unlikely to
achieve graduate program expansion. The second factor is a significantly stronger faculty research
program in SCIS, which motivates our faculty members to be more proactively involved in graduate
student recruitment and supervision. The third factor is the more concerted effort at the School’s level to
drive graduate student recruitment, retention and training. Last but certainly not least, our growth reflects
the collective increase in confidence of our graduate students as the result of the successes of our recent
Ph.D. graduates. These factors are inter-related and inter-dependent. Our graduate program growth is in
many ways a reflection of our research and funding program growth.
Finally, we have continued a steady and robust increase in Bachelors and Ph.D. production, with 2007-08
setting another record of 8 Ph.D. graduates (see Table 3). This single-year production is larger than the
7
entire four-year production covered by our last program review. In particular, the number of our Ph.D.
graduates compared quite favorably with the national average based on the Computing Research
Association’s annual survey of major research universities. (See Section 6) We expect the production rate
for 2008-09 to be equally promising.
We have had remarkable success using REU and other opportunities to mentor our undergraduate
Computer Science students into graduate school. From Fall 2006 through Spring 2008, 25 of our BS
Computer Science students went on to complete their MS degree in Computer Science at FIU and as of
Fall 2008, 28 of our BS graduates are enrolled in MS degrees at FIU. Thus over 20% of our CS graduates
have gone on to our graduate program. Others have of course gone on to attend graduate school at other
institutions; however, we do not have data available at this time to determine how many. While this is a
remarkable success in mentoring our Computer Science students into graduate school, the educational
needs of our Information Technology graduates remain unmet. Implementing our proposed MS in
Information Technology program will meet this need and will have the potential of increasing our MS
student enrollment by over 100%.
Table 4.
2007-2008 Enrollment in SCIS UCC Courses
COP 2210
442
COP 2250
338
CGS 2518
969
Total
1749
Table 5.
2007-2008 Enrollment in SCIS Service Courses
CGS 2060
999
CGS 2100
1210
CGS 2423
31
COP 3175
104
COP 3835
1154
Total Students
3498
SCIS participates in the delivery of the University Core Curriculum courses in the area of quantitative
reasoning by offering three courses as shown in Table 4. These courses served 1749 undergraduates in
academic year 2007-2008. In this period, as shown in Table 5, we served an additional 2498
undergraduate students who enrolled in the service courses that we offer to the university community.
These courses together served 5247 undergraduates at FIU.
4 Major Changes in Program
4.1
Discipline or field
The field of computing and information technology has continued to expand and evolve rapidly in the
U.S. and in the world. Not only is the field a critical driver to the national industry and economy, it has
become, and will be more so, a critical enabler and driver to every sector of industry and society, as well
as academic disciplines. CS and IT are a top national priority in science and engineering. For further
information, refer to the 2007 President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST)
report, and the America COMPETES Act. There are numerous studies and reports from the National
Academies, industry groups and government agencies urging the federal government to increase and
enhance federal support and investment in IT research and education.
8
4.2
Student Demand
CS and IT enrollment has gone through a period of major decline nationally due to the last (technology)
recession of 2000 and negative publicity of outsourcing. Nationally, the enrollment has stabilized and
showed signs of increasing since the last year. (For more information, refer to the Computing Research
Association studies, http://www.cra.org). For our School, however, student demand has been consistently
robust: our School’s undergraduate enrollment has actually increased by 23% and the Ph.D. enrollment
has nearly doubled since 2002-03, which has made us one of the largest CS/IT programs in the State of
Florida and in the nation. We expect that, for us, the student demand will continue to increase.
4.3
Occupational Demand
According to the 2008-2009 Edition of the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook,
“Employment in computer systems design and related services will grow by 38.3% and add nearly onefourth of all new jobs in professional, scientific, and technical services.” Furthermore, information-related
jobs such as software publishing and Internet publishing are expected to grow by 32% and 44% over the
next decade.
4.4
Societal Needs
The IT industry is leading the trend toward globalization and is a key area for the United States’
international competitiveness. The National Science Board recently released a report (NSB 08-04)
detailing the need to prioritize international science and engineering partnerships. The World is Flat
details the challenges that are inherent in the move toward globalization. Over the last several years, SCIS
has founded two strategic programs – the Latin American Grid and an NSF-funded Partnership in
International Research and Education program – that provide international research partnerships with
first-tier partners to our faculty and graduate students. We are leveraging these programs to better prepare
our students for their roles in the global IT marketplace.
5 Student Learning Outcomes
The School of Computing and Information Sciences has an extensive ongoing program assessment
mechanism involving various indirect and direct measures of student learning as well as input from
various constituencies including alumni, student organizations, School’s advisory board and employers.
Every year, at the end of the assessment cycle, the faculty reviews the assessment results for both
Computer Science and Information Technology programs and makes recommendation as how to improve
the programs.
The BS in Computer Sciences program is accredited by ABET. In the last program review by ABET, our
accreditation was reaffirmed with flying colors. During the past several years, the assessment has
resulted in the following improvements to the program:




The course syllabi for COP 4540 (Databases) and COP 4338 (Programming III) were revised in
06-07.
Prerequisites for the course COP 2210 (Programming I) were changed in 05-06 to better prepare
students.
A Senior Project (CIS 4911) course was added to the BS in CS curriculum in 05-06 to improve
our students' training in System Development and provide an avenue for the direct measurement
of student learning outcomes at the program level.
An Introduction to Computing course (CGS 1920) was required for all majors in 05-06 to give
them an introduction to the challenges and opportunities of the field as well as to address the high
9


attrition rate in computing which is due in part to the lack of understanding of the discipline
among students.
COM 3100 (Business and Professional Communications) was required in 04-05 to improve the
communication skills of our students.
COP 4540 (Databases) was required in 04-05 to strengthen the Systems Development component
of our BS program
In addition, we have expanded the computer science curriculum by designing and offering additional
elective courses including Software Testing, Data Mining, and Parallel Programming.
SCIS began offering the full undergraduate Information Technology degree program in 2003 (2nd major
BA program began in 2002) and while the program is still very young, it has been subject to SCIS
program assessment resulting in considerable improvements. We have established dedicated Hardware
and networking closed laboratories, and expanded the available elective courses including:




Web Application Programming (COP 4813)
Unix System Administration (COP 4343)
IT Automation (proposed)
Windows Server Administration (Proposed)
The Academic Learning Compacts are found in the appendices.
6 Strengths that Support the Achievement of Program Goals
A synergistic, proactive, cooperative and increasingly confident faculty team
We believe that this is one of our School’s greatest strengths. A major improvement of our School over
the last few years is that we, the faculty, staff and the leadership team, have worked together and
transformed our School into a synergistic academic organization under a common vision and shared
mission. We have instituted a culture of forward thinking, innovation, cooperation, and collaboration. Our
faculty is increasingly confident and has the courage to pursue high goals. This is the foundation to
achieve sustained growth and success, and is the hallmark for a truly dynamic and progressive academic
organization. All the concrete accomplishments cited in this report are the results of this improvement.
Our faculty is collaborative and cooperative, not only among ourselves, but also working hard to align our
School’s goals with the university’s strategic goals and priorities. It is our faculty’s consensus that our
School can and should play a central role in advancing the university’s core missions and strategic goals.
Progress and Momentum
In the last five years, we have made tremendous progress, with limited resources, in terms of both the
quality and scale of our research and education programs. Our School is now one of the largest CS and IT
programs in the SUS, representing 20% of the entire SUS production in this critical area. Our students are
well sought out and well respected. We are very competitive with the best and more mature programs in
the State in external competitive research funding, publications, Ph.D. training, and faculty development.
In particular, we have established our School as one of the top two externally funded research programs in
the SUS, in terms of per-faculty annual funding. Complete details can be found in Appendix 0.
Our Ph.D. graduates are much more competitive than they were five years ago, reflecting the improved
quality of our School’s research and operation. Examples of our recent Ph.D. graduates’ positions include
tenure-track faculty members at the University of Alabama-Birmingham and the University of Montana,
and highly selective industry research centers and companies, such as the Xerox Research Center,
Microsoft, EBay, and Amazon.com. Furthermore, our school is far more visible and respected nationally
10
and internationally today compared to five years ago. Table 6 quantitatively measures our School’s
critical indicators and their changes over the last five years, and shows phenomenal growth in areas in line
with the university’s strategic priorities, such as Ph.D. enrollment and graduation rate, peer-reviewed
publications (especially premier journal and conference publications), and competitive external research
funding.
It is important to note that the faculty size has remained relatively unchanged over the last five years
(increasing from 16 to 20, but one of the current 20 is now Dean of Graduate Programs in the College of
Engineering & Computing), so the gains are productivity gains, rather than a reflection of increased
faculty size. Table 7 compares 2002-2003 performance with 2007-2008 performance on a per-faculty
basis.
Table 6.
SCIS Performance Since 2002
2002-03
2003-04
2004-05
2005-06
2006-07
2007-08
Undergraduate FTE
Graduate FTE
622
56
513
60
507
58
545
58
536
67
516
73
Undergraduate Major Headcount
Masters Headcount
Ph.D. Headcount
517
72
39
527
54
43
583
1291
60
645
54
61
625
54
66
638
56
72
Bachelors Degrees Awarded
Masters Degrees Awarded
Ph.D. Degrees Awarded
108
34
1
109
34
3
110
961
5
151
25
6
117
33
6
141
28
8
21
60
1
4
87
21
52
6
7
86
23
85
4
9
121
34
81
6
8
129
28
85
7
8
128
36
104
4
6
150
Top Journal & Conference Papers
2002-03
15
2003-04
22
2004-05 2005-06
*2
31
2006-07
34
2007-08
50
Total grant proposals (1000’s)
Number of proposals
Total external funding (1000’s)
Number of awards
$22,583
25
$1,337
10
$11,802
32
$2,567
12
$25,284
31
$2,712
23
$51,136
46
$2,790
24
Journal Papers
Conference Papers
Books
Book Chapters
Total
$12,080
27
$923
8
$14,475
32
$2,668
17
Table 7.
SCIS Research Performance 2002-2003 vs. 2007-2008, on per-faculty basis
2002-03
2007-08
Change
Tenured/Tenure track Faculty Members
16
20
25.0%
% of above Faculty Who Are Research Active
56%
70%
25.0%
Journal Papers
Conference Papers
1
2
1.31
3.75
1.80
5.20
37.4%
38.7%
Includes students in the China M.S. program
Data are missing for this year
11
Books
Book Chapters
Total Publications
Top Journal & Conference Papers
Total Grant Proposals
Number of Proposals
Total External Funding
Number of Awards
Number of Awards from NSF
% of Faculty as NSF PI or Co-PI
% of Faculty as PI or Co-PI
0.06
0.25
5.38
0.94
0.20
0.30
7.50
2.50
233.3%
20.0%
39.4%
166.0%
$1,411,000
1.56
$83,600
0.63
0.31
13%
25%
$2,557,000
2.30
$139,500
1.20
0.75
55%
65%
81.2%
47.4%
66.9%
90.5%
141.9%
323.1%
160.0%
Finally, we compare our performance with the national average. The Computing Research Association’s
(CRA) annual survey is the most respected survey in the field of Computer Science. The 2007-08 survey
includes 155 major research universities in North America. Table 8 shows that with far fewer resources
(measured by student-faculty ratio) than the national average of the top 155 universities, our School is
above the national average in Ph.D. production, and well above the national average in total degree
production. Our per-capita external research funding is about 10% higher than the national average for
research programs ranked beyond the top 36. Furthermore, for research programs ranked 25-36, the percapita research funding is $168,000 compared to our average of $140,000. These data imply that our
School’s research funding is either at or close to the level of the top 50 programs nationally. It is expected
that SCIS external funding, measured on per-faculty basis, will solidly be in the top 50 in the nation in
2008-09. As of October 2008, the School has already averaged over $180K in per-faculty external
funding.
Focused and streamlined organization and operation
We have systematically developed and established our School’s key research areas in data management,
software engineering, informatics, and developed research clusters and critical mass around them, with
systematic and synergistic composition of basic research, technology research, and application. We have
also developed a balanced and sustainable funding strategy between large scale, team-oriented,
collaborative research and individual research. We have developed a comprehensive system for better
educating our students, combining classroom instruction, peer mentoring, industry co-training, and
undergraduate research. We have streamlined our School’s operations in such a way that our efforts in
education, research, diversity and partnership building are mutually supportive, rather than competing
with each other for limited resources and attention.
Table 8.
SCIS Performance Compared to National Average (CRA Taulbee Report)
Per-faculty
Per-faculty
Ph.D. student All Student Per Faculty
Ph.D.
degree
to
Faculty to
Faculty Research
Production
production
Ratio
Ratio
Funding
National Average
0.35
3.9
2.4
13
$128,000*
SCIS/FIU
0.40
8.9
3.6
31
$140,000
*Per-capita research funding is compared to the mean of CS research programs ranked beyond
1-36. The per-capita research funding for programs ranked 25-36 is $168,000.
Faculty Development
We have put in place a highly successful junior faculty development program to help young faculty
members succeed. Our efforts have made a significant impact with all junior faculty members excelling in
12
teaching, publication, Ph.D. student advising, service and external funding, including four (4) prestigious
NSF or DOE CAREER Awards. Every assistant professor in the School has at least one NSF grant as PI
or Co-PI and supervises four or more Ph.D. students.
Collaboration, partnership and support system
Our School’s research is highly collaborative and interdisciplinary. In the last five years, we, both as
individual faculty members and the School as a whole, have developed highly successful and expanding
collaborations and partnerships with other units at FIU, with industry, with our peers nationally and
internationally. These partnerships not only expand our School’s visibility and create opportunities for
our faculty and students, but also form an ecosystem to support our School’s core missions and goals. As
Appendix 12.3.2 shows, our faculty collaborates widely with a wide range of colleges and departments at
the university. Furthermore, we have led the development of major industry and international
partnerships. Notable examples include the Latin America Grid Consortium (LA Grid,
http://latinamericagrid.org), the PIRE Consortium (Partnership for International Research and Education,
http://pire.fiu.edu), and the NSF I/UCRC (Industry/University Collaborative Research Center) with over a
dozen leading universities, industry research labs and government centers in the US, Mexico, Argentina,
Spain, China, India, and Japan. Our leadership and innovative partnership model has led to the prestigious
NSF PIRE Award ($2.3 million). Only 4% of the proposals to the NSF PIRE program were funded and
we are the only Computer Science program in the US to receive the award.
7 Weaknesses that Impede the Achievement of Program Goals
Faculty
Our faculty needs to grow in three aspects. The first is the number of tenured or tenure-track faculty
members. Our student to faculty ratio is still too high compared to our peers in the SUS and nationally,
especially with ranked research universities. Second, we need to recruit well-established senior faculty
leaders. Third, despite our persistent efforts, our School still lacks women and under-represented
minorities on our faculty team.
Program visibility
We have greatly improved our School’s reputation and visibility. However, our visibility still does not
match with our program quality and scale, which suggests an additional and more effective marketing
effort is needed. Furthermore, our university as a whole still lacks visibility and recognition in key circles,
which in turn limits our program’s visibility.
Program composition
For the first time in Spring 2008, our School’s IT undergraduate enrollment surpassed the CS
undergraduate enrollment. And yet we do not have a graduate-level degree program for the continued
education of IT students. Furthermore, the IT area represents a great market and demand. The School
urgently needs an MS in Information Technology program.
Budget
Our school’s budget and resource allocation before the last two years’ of budget cuts were already limited
and non-competitive compared to the kind of programs we aspire to become. The current budget cut plan,
when fully implemented, will wipe out our School’s non-salary operating budget (from the 2006-07
level), which will not only short circuit the momentum and progress we have made, but also
fundamentally impede our ability to achieve our strategic goals.
13
8 Opportunities to Explore in the Achievement of Program Goals
Job market demand
There are numerous industry and government studies that indicate a strong market demand for CS and IT
professional jobs. Most notable is the bi-annual Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) report, which has
consistently forecast high demand for IT professionals, who enjoy high salaries and more than twice the
growth rate of the overall workforce (see Table 9). The median salary for Software Engineers in May
2006 as reported in the 2008 Department of Labor website is over $83,000. Combined with the low
production rate of CS/IT degrees nationally, it indicates a high potential for further growth of our
discipline in general and our School in particular. The Money magazine last year ranked Software
Engineer as the best job in the U.S.
Diversity
There are numerous national studies that indicate the importance of diversity in the IT profession to the
national competitiveness of our nation, and yet minority groups, e.g. Hispanics, are severely underrepresented in our field, both in industry and academia. As a national leader of diversity, and one of the
most important producers of Hispanic talents in IT, our School is well positioned to leverage our
leadership to advance our program goals.
National Competitiveness
There is a strong and renewed awareness by leaders of industry and the federal government of the critical
importance of IT and IT innovation to the competiveness of our industry, economy, defense and national
competitiveness as a whole, which is supported by major studies by the National Academies (“Rising
Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future,”
National Academies, Committee on Science, Engineering and Public Policy (A joint unit of the National
Academy of Science, of Engineering and the Institute of Medicine), 2007) and the President’s Council of
Advisers on Science and Technology (PCAST) “Leadership Under Challenge: Information Technology
R&D in a Competitive World”). As a result, federal funding for IT research and education, as indicated
by the recent major legislation, America COMPETES Act, is expected to have major growth. Our School
is well positioned to leverage such growth.
Demand
The demand for our students has consistently surpassed our School’s supply, both nationally and
regionally. Furthermore, the demand for IT professionals and IT skills is experiencing rapid growth.
These demands represent significant opportunities for the growth of our School, for curriculum
innovation and new degree development, and for placement of our students.
2000-2010
2002-2012
2004-2014
2006-2016
Table 9.
IT Job Growth Projections
BLS Projections for Professional-Level IT Positions
Projected Growth
Number (millions)
Percent
Total Job Openings (millions)
2.16
65.8
2.49
1.15
35.2
1.60
1.04
30.5
1.49
0.85
24.1
1.64
Critical Driver
A major change in our discipline is that computing and information technology have become a critical
enabler for every major industry and discipline, and are the driver for the creation of new knowledge and
14
industry across societal sectors, which creates tremendous needs and opportunity for inter-discipline
collaboration in research and education, at FIU, nationally, and internationally.
9 Threats to Overcome in the Achievement of Program Goals
9.1
Image of the field
There are several major misconceptions among the general public, including perspective undergraduate
students, that Computer Science is mostly about computer programming, that IT jobs are nerdy and lack
human interaction, and that most IT jobs have been outsourced to countries like India. These myths
cannot be further from the truth. These problems are widely recognized nationally, and the professional
IT communities are actively devising ways to correct such misconceptions; and locally we are doing our
part as well, which is important to ensure healthy enrollment in the field that matches the robust and rapid
growth demand of talents.
9.2
Representation of SCIS at FIU
Computing and IT are a strategically important area for any major research university not only because of
the importance of the discipline itself, but more importantly, because they are a critical enabler and driver
for the growth of many existing and emerging disciplines, both from research and educational points of
view. How well we can play such an “enabling” role at the university – forging collaborations with other
academic units, developing new inter-disciplinary programs and initiatives, and stimulating the growth of
key university priority areas in medicine, health, life science, hurricane mitigation, etc,--will not only
affect the growth of the university, but also to a large degree will determine the growth and
competitiveness of the School. And to effectively play such a role, the School needs to have visibility,
representation and participation (in strategic discussions) at the university level, which our School
currently does not have. Lack of visibility and representation will limit the function that our School can
play at FIU, and make achieving the program goals more difficult.
9.3
Faculty
The student-faculty ratio (including instructors) in SCIS now stands at 31-1, which is significantly higher
than our peers in the SUS and nationally. This, unless corrected, will limit our school’s growth potential
and potentially cause problems for the future accreditation. Furthermore, the ratio of the number of Ph.D.
students and tenured/tenure-track faculty members now stands at 3.6, and the ratio of the numbers of
Ph.D. students and research active faculty now stands at 4.6. This means that we have reached a ceiling in
terms of Ph.D. enrollment. On one hand, it implies that our School has performed at a superb level in
terms of Ph.D. enrollment and training, and on the other hand, it means that the potential for Ph.D.
enrollment growth will be limited without an increase in the size of the tenure-track faculty team, because
faculty cannot provide quality supervision to large numbers of Ph.D. students.
9.4
Budget
Our School’s budget and resource allocation before the last two years’ budget cuts were already limited
and non-competitive compared to the kind of programs we aspire to become. The current budget cut plan,
when fully implemented, will wipe out our School’s non-salary operating budget, which will not only
short circuit the momentum and progress we have made, but will also fundamentally impede our ability to
achieve our strategic goals, and do severe and long-lasting damage to the quality of teaching and
instruction, the scale of enrollment, and particularly, to the School's Ph.D. and research programs. Take
the latter for instance: first-class research and Ph.D. programs do not operate in vacuum. The vast
majority of Ph.D. students require financial support; active research requires an environment that
promotes the exchange and flow of people and information (e.g. SCIS now organizes weekly research
15
colloquiums with invited external speakers); infrastructure and process support (e.g. pre-/post-award
support for research proposals/grants, interactions with funding agencies and industry), organization to
support academic exchange (e.g. conferences, workshops, visits), collaboration and partnerships, and
marketing efforts to promote our organization, programs, and faculty. All of these require people and
resources; and all of these will be in jeopardy if the cuts are fully implemented. The impact to research
and Ph.D. programs will in turn reduce our competitiveness in attracting external funding/donation, hence
starting down a spiraling cycle.
10 Budget
10.1
Steady State
The SCIS budget in FY 2006-07, at the level of $5.85 million and with the sizes of the faculty, staff,
students, and program offerings at the time, represents a stable state, though at a minimum level as the
data in Section 6 have shown, for the School. The accumulated budget cut plan that we have been
implementing will cut the SCIS budget by $970,000 by FY 2010-11, which alone will reduce our school’s
non-salary operating budget by 91%. In addition, the SCIS operating budget had been helped by two
factors: The first is $110,000/year lab fees, which supported all OPS (student) staff for manning labs and
assisting students, and which we were told was no longer allowed. The second is salary savings (roughly
$270,000/year) from unfilled faculty positions, which is no longer available from FY2008-09 because of
faculty hiring. The total (explicit and implicit) cut will wipe out all our operating expenditures (excluding
salary for faculty and staff, but including graduate and OPS student support).
10.2
Proposed increments in total budget requirements for the next five years,
and proposed new deliverables, i.e. expected revenues and return on
investment, and rationale
We fully understand that the university is under severe fiscal stress; and our School as a member of the
university community has the responsibility of sharing the burden, while continuing to fulfill our core
missions. No matter what our budget situation will be, we will continue to strive to achieve excellence
and to improve our operation efficiency.
Table 10 shows proposed increments in SCIS budget requirements in the next five years. Please note that
for the sake of simplicity, it does not take into consideration inflation and salary differentials for new
hires. A detailed explanation and rationale follow.
Explanation and Rationale
It is important to note that if this budget increment proposal is approved and implemented, the School will
add a total of 3 senior faculty members and 3 junior faculty members, but the School’s non-salary
operating budget will not be restored to 2006-2007 levels until 2010-2011, and even by 2012-13 it will be
only modestly larger than the 2006-07 level, despite a significant projected increase in faculty and student
size.
For 2008-09, we request an increase to the SCIS operating budget of $200K to partially offset the impact
of the budget cut we have incurred. With the increment, we plan to spend roughly $76,800 (salary plus
benefits) to hire a dedicated undergraduate advisor and instructor, for which we have an existing but
unfunded position.
16
For 2009-10, we request an increase to the SCIS operating budget of $200K, hiring a senior faculty leader
with loaded salary (salary plus benefits) of $224K, and $500K start-up cost.
For 2010-11, we request an increase to the operating budget of an additional $200K, hiring a senior
faculty leader (same cost estimation) and a junior tenure-track faculty with loaded salary of $110K and
$250K start-up support.
For 2011-12, we request a similar budget increment as in 2010-11.
For 2012-13, we request an increase to hire a tenure-track assistant professor at the cost of loaded salary
of $110K, and start-up cost of $250K.
This request is aimed at addressing three major problems.
First, as discussed in Section 6, our student to faculty ratio is significantly higher compared to our peers
in the SUS and nationally, both from the viewpoint of Ph.D. students and the student population as a
whole. Without the requested faculty hiring, our School’s growth will be severely limited, in terms of
overall enrollment and FTE, Ph.D. enrollment and graduation rate, as well as external funding. For the
latter, we are already performing at a very high level in the State and nationally.
Second, a weakness of our school is its lack of senior star faculty, who can have a huge impact on our
program’s visibility, reputation, funding, and Ph.D. student recruitment and training, and thus senior star
faculty are necessary for us to achieve our stated goal of becoming a top 50 program in the nation. When
we hire senior faculty leaders, we need to give them the necessary resources and flexibility to build their
teams, to maximize their impact and our return on investment. The intention of this proposal is to give
these senior faculty leaders significant say in filling the requested junior faculty positions.
Third, a successful academic organization, in this context, has three pillars
1. a productive team of faculty
2. an adequate team of support staff
3. necessary operational funding.
The funding is absolutely essential to support not only the basic functions of the organization, but also
strategic initiatives and the “extra” or “optional” parts of the organization’s functions, which are the true
driver of growth and improvement.
Table 10.
1
2
3
4
5
Year
Base Budget
2008 - 09
2009 - 10
2010 - 11
2011 - 12
2012 - 13
$5,366,000
$5,566,000
$5,990,000
$6,524,000
$7,058,000
Proposed Five-Year Budget Increments
Proposed
Proposed
Increments to Base
One-Time Increment
$200,000
$424,000
$500,000
$534,000
$750,000
$534,000
$750,000
$110,000
$250,000
Total
New Base
$5,566,000
$5,990,000
$6,524,000
$7,058,000
$7,168,000
It is fashionable, in times of budget cutting, to talk about cutting “non-essential” services, and it is easy to
claim that seminar series, travel, and other budget items are simply pork. But this is not the case and we
will offer one specific example.
17
The School has spent over 3 years and over $500,000 in resources (including faculty/staff time,
infrastructure investment and support, bootstrap funding) to lead the development of the Latin American
Grid Consortium with IBM. This is unquestionably a large investment which is the type that might not be
possible in the next few years given some of the current budgetary constraints. However, this initiative
has made a major impact to the SCIS research and education programs, not only in terms of the
intangibles such as strengthening SCIS and FIU's international reputation, visibility and leadership, but
also in terms of measurable return on investment. This includes many dozens of internships and student
placements at IBM, a number of faculty grants and donations over $1 million from IBM, and a number of
international collaborative research projects with partner institutions.
The most notable example is the NSF PIRE (Partnership for International Research and Education)
Award, which is arguably among the most competitive grants that FIU has ever received. Among the 500
proposals to the NSF PIRE program (from virtually all major research universities), only 20, or 4%, were
awarded. And we were the first computing program in the U.S. to receive the award. It is fair to say
that without our leadership, innovation and investment in the LA Grid initiative, the award would
not have been possible. In addition, the LA Grid initiative (the partnerships we developed, its innovative
partnership model, the track record and impact we have established) has been leveraged in many SCIS
proposals and grants.
Most high impact, strategically important initiatives require not only forward thinking and leadership, but
also the necessary bootstrap funding and resource support that is not part of day-to-day operations.
Without necessary resources and budget, such initiatives would not have been possible. Our School’s
success in the last few years has occurred not only because we have executed our basic operations well,
but more importantly, because we have aggressively, consistently and effectively driven these growth
initiatives and strategies, ranging from organizing conferences and weekly research seminars (with
outside speakers), developed strategic partnerships and collaboration, bootstrapped key group-oriented
projects (before they are mature enough to compete for external funding), marketing, etc. Furthermore,
for the return on investment goals we set (see below), our organization will be bigger in every aspect,
hence requiring more operational support.
Return on Investment
We set the following concrete and extremely ambitious goals for the School for the next five years, in
conjunction with the requested budget increases. We set the goals in the following way with the
understanding that there is no simple item-to-item calculation on ROI, but rather, growth is the result of
the increase of organizational strength, operation efficiency and execution of synergistic strategies.



Increase the Ph.D. enrollment from the current level of around 70 to 110 by 2012-13. At this
level, with the increase of new tenured or tenure-track faculty members, each research-active
faculty member in SCIS will supervise on average 5 Ph.D. students, which is a maximum level by
any standard.
Increase the annual level of Ph.D. graduation rate from 8 to 15 by 2012-13. As the data in Section
6 show, our current ratio of Ph.D. graduation is already very competitive nationally. The
proposed rate includes further improvement of productivity.
Increase the School’s annual external research funding from the current level of $2.8 million to
$4 million in 2012-13 and maintain it consistently. At this level, the average funding for every
research active faculty in SCIS will reach $190,000 per year, which is a tall order by any
standard.
18

Reach the level of overall enrollment of 800 undergraduate majors (25% increase), 100 MS
students (78% increase), and 110 Ph.D. students (57% increase).
11 Major Findings and Recommendations
As the data in this report have shown, the School of Computing and Information Sciences (SCIS) has
made tremendous progress, nothing short of a transformation, in the last five years, across all major
indicators and consistent with the university priorities. We have achieved most of the strategic goals we
have set for the School, and established SCIS as a prominent computing and IT program in the region and
the State. Without exception, the accomplishments in our School’s quality and productivity are not one
time events, but rather reflect consistent progress year after year – a true indicator of a successful
organization. Equally important, we have shown that our progress is due to the increase in quality and
productivity, rather than simple increase in program size; and our productivity gain has been achieved
with minimal resources reflecting the superb operating efficiency of our organization. Our productivity
ratio is extremely competitive compared to our peers in the State and nationally.
We have stated that the underpinning for our progress is the transformation of our organization – an
increasingly synergistic, proactive, cooperative and confident team of faculty, staff and students, under
shared vision and goals. Continued improvement to the organization, coupled with effective strategy and
execution, ensures that our progress is sustainable.
Our school is well positioned to be a leader at FIU to help drive the university’s strategic priorities and
goals and to reach our ultimate goal of becoming a top 50 computing and IT program in the nation. Our
school and faculty are well prepared to take on such responsibilities. However, we cannot do it alone. To
achieve such lofty goals, we need the university’s support in terms of both resources and attention. We
recommend:




Expansion of the SCIS faculty team. As demonstrated in this report, the size of our faculty vs. the
scale of our education and research programs is significantly below our peers in the State and
nationally, particularly compared to the kind of programs we aspire to be. Without additional
tenure-track faculty members, particularly senior faculty leaders, our growth potential in Ph.D.
enrollment, graduation rate and external funding is severely limited. We recommend hiring
additional faculty members, in our School’s focused research cluster areas, as discussed in
Section 10.2.
Operating Budget. As discussed in this report, the return on investment in faculty will be limited
without adequate non-salary operating resource support. This support is critical for us to achieve
the challenging goals set forth. At a minimal level, we recommend halting any further reductions
of the SCIS base budget and restoring the SCIS operating budget to the 2006-07 level,
proportional to the size increase of our School’s programs.
With close to 400 majors and growing, our undergraduate IT program enrollment has for the first
time surpassed CS enrollment in Spring 2008, and yet there is no corresponding Master’s level
degree programs at FIU for these students. More importantly, the IT area represents tremendous
market demand and growth potential, particularly for developing highly rewarding professional
Master degree and specializations. Our proposal to create the MS in IT degree program has been
stalled for three years; and we request the administration’s support to make this program a reality
as soon as possible.
The integration of computing and information technology is the driver for innovation in
practically all major emerging and existing academic disciplines. The success of SCIS serving as
the critical enabler and driver for inter-disciplinary collaboration and innovation in research and
19
education across the university is critical not only to the School’s endeavor to reach its strategic
goals, but also to the university as a whole to reach its strategic goals, in such a way that is cost
effective and helps to put the university at the forefront of research and education innovation. For
SCIS to effectively play this role, it needs to have the necessary visibility and representation at
the university level, and to engage in early university strategic discussions, based on which
policies, priorities and strategies are set. We recommend the university to provide SCIS with
such opportunities and attention.
20
12 APPENDICES
12.1
Ph.D. Graduates Employment
Student's Name
Graham, Scott
Ding, Junhua
Vasilevsky, Dmitry
Sun, Yanli
Zhang, Chengcui
Ye, Xiangyu
Mo, Lian
Sanchez, Mario
Deng, Zhenyue
Yang, Li
Kharma, Qasem
Gao, Shu
Selivonenko, Andriy
Shi, Tianjun
Dong, Zhijiang
Yang, Chengyong
Buendia, Patricia
Zheng, Guoliang
Fu, Yujian
Chen, Min
Yan, Jianhua
Ezenwoye, Onyeka
Zhao, Na
Kaiser, David
Cazalis, Daniel
Sun, Weixiang
Peng, Wei
Morales, Jose
12.2
Defense
Dec-03
Apr-04
Apr-04
Jul-04
Jul-04
Jul-04
Apr-05
Apr-05
Jul-05
Jul-05
Jul-05
Dec-05
Dec-05
Apr-06
Jul-06
Jul-06
Dec-06
Dec-06
Apr-07
Apr-07
Jul-07
Jul-07
Dec-07
Dec-07
Dec-07
Apr-08
Apr-08
Apr-08
Placement
Research Coordinator, FIU
Assistant Professor, East Carolina University
Software Engineer, Microsoft
Industrial Job, China
Assistant Professor, Univ. of Alabama at Birmingham
Industrial Job, California
Software Engineer, Beckman Coulter, Miami
Assistant Professor, Miami Dade Community College
Industrial Job, Alabama
Assistant Professor, Univ. of Tennessee at Chattanooga
Assistant Professor, Yarmouk University, Jordan
Industrial Job, New York
Industrial Job, Miami
Software Engineer, Microsoft
Assistant Professor, Middle Tennessee State University
Applied BioSystems, Inc., California
Visiting Assistant Professor, University of Miami
Assistant Professor, North Carolina Central University
Assistant Professor, Alabama A & M Univ.
Assistant Professor, Univ. of Montana
EBay
Assistant Professor, South Dakota State Univ.
Asst Vice Pres., State Street Corporation
Director of Institutional Research, Miami Dade College
Instructor, Barry University
Amazon
Xerox Research
Visiting Instructor, FIU
FY 2005-2006 through 2007-2008 External Funding Comparison
We have collected data on external funding for the major computer science departments in the State
University System. In three cases (FIU, UF, and USF), we were able to collect these data from the
university’s research office; in the two cases where such data were unavailable, we have used
departmental data published on the Web. The data show that FIU’s SCIS was among the top two SUS
departments in per-faculty C&G funding in FY 2005-2006 through 2007-2008.
21
Department
FIU SCIS
UF CISE
UCF EECS
FSU CS
USF CSE
FY 05-06 and FY
06-07 Avg. C&G $
per Tenure-Track
Faculty Member
$139.0k
$112.0k
$93.5k
$105.0k
$ 65.4k
FY 05-06 C&G $ FY 06-07 C&G $ FY 07-08 C&G $
per Tenure-Track per Tenure-Track per
TenureFaculty Member
Faculty Member
Track Faculty
Member
$127.1k
$150.3k
$139.5k
$ 78.1k
$138.8k
$119.0k
$ 93.2k
$ 93.7k
$141.6k
$110.0k
$100.0k
N/A
$ 64.5k
$ 66.3k
N/A
FIU SCIS
In FY 2005-2006, SCIS received $2.67M in external funding (defined as contracts and grants, industry
donations and contracts, and departmental effort supported via other FIU departments). We had 21 tenuretrack faculty members at the time, so this was $127.1K per tenure-track faculty member. In FY 20062007, SCIS received $2.86M in external funding. We had 19 tenure-track faculty members at the time, so
this was $150.3K per tenure-track faculty member. In FY 2007-2008, SCIS received $2.79M in external
funding. We had 20 tenure-track faculty members at the time, so this was $139.5K per tenure-track
faculty member.
UF Computer and Information Science and Engineering (CISE)
According to UF Division of Sponsored Research data3, in FY 2005-2006, the UF CISE department
received $2.89M in external funding. According to the department’s website4, there were 37 tenure-track
faculty members, so this was $78.1K per tenure-track faculty member. In FY 2006-2007, the UF CISE
department received $5.14M in external funding. There were, once again, 37 tenure-track faculty
members, so this was $138.8K per tenure-track faculty member. In FY 2007-2008, the UF CISE
department received $4.40M in external funding. With 37 tenure-track faculty members, this was
$119.0K per tenure-track faculty member.
UCF Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (EECS)
According to an analysis of the data available from UCF EECS5, in FY 2005-2006, the UCF EECS
department had active projects with $5.59M in annual funding. According to their website6, there were 60
tenure-track faculty members, so this was $93.2K per tenure-track faculty member. The same analysis
shows that UCF EECS department had active projects with $5.53M in annual funding in FY 2006-2007.
According to their website, there were 59 tenure-track faculty members, so this was $93.7K per tenuretrack faculty member. In 2007-2008, our analysis shows that UCF EECS had active projects with $8.35M
in annual funding. With 59 tenure-track faculty members, this was $141.6K per tenure-track faculty
member.
3
http://apps.rgp.ufl.edu/research/search/
http://www.cise.ufl.edu/peoples/faculty/ext.shtml
5
http://www.eecs.ucf.edu/current_grants.php - collected January 11th, 2007, July 7th, 2008, and Sept. 8th, 2008
6
http://www.eecs.ucf.edu/people/faculty_list.php
4
22
FSU Computer Science (CS)
According to a graph of research expenditures on the FSU CS departmental webpage 7, in FY 2005-2006
the FSU CS department spent approximately $2.2M of external funds. According to their website8, there
were 20 tenure-track faculty members, so this was $110K per tenure track faculty member. In FY 200620079, the FSU CS department spent approximately $2M of external funds. There were, once again, 20
tenure-track faculty members, so this was $100K per tenure track faculty member. FSU has not yet posted
their FY 2007-2008 funding figures; they had 17 tenure-track faculty members during that fiscal year.
USF Computer Science and Engineering (CSE)
According to USF Office of Research data10, in FY 2005-2006, the USF CSE department received
$1.29M in external funding. According to the department’s website11, there were 20 tenure-track faculty
members, so this was $64.5K per tenure-track faculty member. In FY 2006-200712, the USF CSE
department received $1.33M in external funding. There were, once again, 20 tenure-track faculty
members, so this was $66.3K per tenure-track faculty member. USF has not yet posted their FY 20072008 funding figures; there were 19 tenure-track faculty members during this funding period.
12.3
Faculty Collaborations
A first class research program cannot be built in vacuum. Collaboration is fundamentally important to
computing research. The SCIS faculty has actively engaged in a wide range of collaborative efforts.
Along with the growth of our research and funding programs, the number and scale of collaborations
from our school has also grown accordingly.
The following summarizes the current and recent collaborations that SCIS faculty has been undertaking
(1) with other units at FIU, (2) with other academic institutions, (3) with industry, and (4) with
international partners. The term “collaboration” here is defined as one or more SCIS faculty members
have been working with an entity on (a) joint grants, (b) joint proposals, (c) joint publications, (d) joint
projects, and (e) joint curriculum development or participation of thesis/dissertation committees. This list
is put together based on reports from the SCIS faculty.
In addition, almost every college, school, academic and administrative office at FIU has received
technical consulting, assistance, support or system development provided by our school, e.g. Colleges of
Engineering & Computing, Arts & Sciences, Business & Administration, Hospitality, Academic Affairs,
UTS, Faculty Senate, etc.
12.3.1 Collaborations with Other FIU Units
1. Electrical and Computer Engineering (Participating SCIS Faculty: Naphtali Rishe, David
Barton, Yi Deng, Xudong He, Ana Pasztor)
2. CEC Center for Diversity in Engineering and Computing (Masoud Milani, Yi Deng, Ana Pasztor)
3. Biomedical Engineering (Giri Narasimhan, Yi Deng)
7
http://www.cs.fsu.edu/research/funding/current/expenditures_new1.jpg
http://www.cs.fsu.edu/faculty/
9
http://www.cs.fsu.edu/research/funding/current/expenditures.gif
10
http://reports.research.usf.edu/interactiveViewer.asp?ReportName=FY05_06_Award_Mods.rpt
11
http://www.csee.usf.edu/index.php?sec=25
12
http://reports.research.usf.edu/publications/FY0607/
8
23
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
Industrial and Systems Engineering (Peter Clarke)
Telecommunications and Information Technology Institute (Peter Clarke)
Civil and Environmental Engineering (Shu-Ching Chen, Yi Deng, Naphtali Rishe)
Civil and Environmental Engineering (Masoud Milani)
Mechanical Engineering and Material Science (Yi Deng, Shu-Ching Chen)
Construction Management (Shu-Ching Chen)
Applied Research Center (Xudong He, Masoud Sadjadi)
Biology (Masoud Sadjadi, Giri Narasinham)
Chemistry (Masoud Sadjadi, Giri Narasinham)
Earth Sciences (Masoud Sadjadi, Shu-Ching Chen, Yi Deng, Raju Rangaswami)
Environmental Studies (Shu-Ching Chen, Giri Narasinham)
Forensics (Giri Narasinham)
Mathematics (Masoud Milani)
Physics (Masoud Sadjadi, Masoud Milani)
Psychology (Christine Lisetti)
Sociology & Anthropology (Christine Lisetti)
Statistics (Shu-Ching Chen, Peter Clarke)
IHRC (Shu-Ching Chen)
Decision Sciences & Information Systems (Naphtali Rishe, Xudong He, Yi Deng, Raju
Rangaswami)
Molecular Microbiology & Immunology (Giri Narasinham)
Finance (Shu-Ching Chen, Giri Narasinham)
College of Education (Ana Pasztor, Masoud Milani, Yi Deng, Peter Clarke)
Honors College (Ana Pasztor, Peter Clarke)
CIARA (Masoud Sadjadi)
Academy for the Arts of Teaching (Masoud Milani)
Office of International Studies (Yi Deng, Shu-Ching Chen, Masoud Sadjadi)
Asian Studies (Yi Deng)
12.3.2 Collaborations with Other Universities
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
California State University (Shu-Ching Chen)
Clemson University (Peter Clarke)
Colorado School of Mines (Jason Liu)
Duke University (Tao Li)
Florida A&M University (Peter Clarke)
Florida Atlantic University (Masoud Sadjadi, Yi Deng, Raju Rangaswami)
Florida Memorial University (Naphtali Rishe)
Florida State University (Masoud Sadjadi, Shu-Ching Chen)
Florida Institute of Technology (Masoud Sadjadi, Shu-Ching Chen)
Georgia Tech (Masoud Sadjadi)
Harvard University (Giri Narasinham)
Indiana University, Bloomington (Naphtali Rishe, Tao Li, Vagelis Hristidis)
Michigan State University (Masoud Sadjadi)
24
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
MIT (Giri Narasinham)
North Dakota State University (Xudong He, Peter Clarke)
Purdue University (Shu-Ching Chen)
Rice University (Shu-Ching Chen)
San Diego State University (Shu-Ching Chen)
South Dakota State University (Masoud Sadjadi)
Stanford University (Christine Lisetti)
University of Alabama (Shu-Ching Chen, Peter Clarke)
University of Arkansas, Little Rock (Shu-Ching Chen)
University of California at Berkeley (Tao Li)
University of California, Riverside (Vagelis Hristidis)
University of California, Santa Barbara (Raju Rangaswami)
University of California, Irvine (Raju Rangaswami)
University of Delaware (Peter Clarke)
University of Florida (Shu-Ching Chen)
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign (Jason Liu)
University of Maryland Baltimore County (Tao Li)
University of Memphis (Giri Narasimhan)
University of Miami (Masoud Sadjadi, Shu-Ching Chen, Yi Deng)
University of Michigan-Dearborn (Shu-Ching Chen)
University of Montana (Shu-Ching Chen)
University of North Florida (Masoud Sadjadi)
University of Pittsburgh (Shu-Ching Chen)
University of Rochester (Tao Li)
University of Illinois, Chicago (Naphtali Rishe, Xudong He)
University of Maryland (Vagelis Hristidis)
University of Texas, Arlington (Vagelis Hristidis, Xudong He, Tao Li)
University of Texas, Dallas (Xudong He)
University of Wisconsin, Madison (Xudong He)
12.3.3 Collaborations with Industry & Community
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
AT&T Research Labs (Peter Clarke)
Cisco (Jason Liu)
Google (Raju Rangaswami)
Huawei Technologies, USA (Shu-Ching Chen)
IBM (Vagelis Hristidis, Naphtali Rishe, Masoud Sadjadi, Yi Deng, Shu-Ching Chen, Tao Li,
Raju Rangaswami)
Los Alamos National Laboratory (Jason Liu)
NEC Research Lab (Tao Li)
NOAA/AOML/Hurricane Research Division (Shu-Ching Chen)
Office Depot (Yi Deng, Steve Luis)
Miami Herald (Naphtali Rishe)
Miami-Dade & Palm Beach Emergency Management (Yi Deng, Steve Luis, Shu-Ching Chen)
25
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Authority (Masoud Milani)
Motorola (Masoud Sadjadi, Xudong He)
National Weather Service, NOAA (Masoud Sadjadi)
Data Transfer Solutions, EpicTide, LitStrat (Naphtali Rishe)
SPAWAR Systems Center, San Diego, USA (Shu-Ching Chen)
Ultimate Software (Peter Clarke)
Xerox Research Center (Tao Li)
12.3.4 Collaborations with International Partners
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
Acadia University, Canada (Shu-Ching Chen)
Barcelona Supercomputing Center (Masoud Sadjadi, Yi Deng)
Chinese Academy of Science (Tao Li)
City University of Hong Kong (Shu-Ching Chen)
East China University of Science and Technology (Xudong He)
Fuzhou University, China (Tao Li)
Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Raju Rangaswami)
Institute of Information Management, National Cheng Kung University, Taiwan (Shu-Ching
Chen)
Institute for Infocomm Research, Singapore (Shu-Ching Chen)
Simon Bolivar University (Vagelis Hristidis)
Moscow University (Naphtali Rishe)
National University, Bogotá, Columbia (Giri Narasimhan)
National Ilan University. Taiwan (Shu-Ching Chen)
National Yunlin University of Science and Technology, Taiwan (Shu-Ching Chen)
Tamkang University, Taiwan (Shu-Ching Chen)
Tel Aviv University (Naphtali Rishe)
Tsinghua University, China (Yi Deng, Tao Li, Shu-Ching Chen)
University of Bonn, Germany (Jason Liu)
University of Guadalajara, Mexico (Raju Rangaswami)
University of Hong Kong (Vagelis Hristidis)
University of Ireland (Peter Clarke)
University of Toronto (Vagelis Hristidis)
Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya in Spain (Masoud Sadjadi)
University of Guadalajara, Mexico (Masoud Sadjadi)
University of Puerto Rico- Mayaguez Campus, Puerto Rico (Masoud Sadjadi)
University of Western Macedonia, Greece (Christine Lisetti)
Xiamen University, China (Tao Li)
26
12.4
Computer Science Academic Learning Compact
Florida International University
Academic Learning Compact
Name of the Undergraduate Degree Program
Computer Science
Mission Statement
The Computer Science degree program provides graduates (1) a broad-based education that will form the basis for
personal growth and life-long learning, (2) a quality technical education that will equip them for productive careers in
the field, (3) the communication skills and social and ethical awareness for the responsible and effective practice of
their professions, and (4) preparation for graduate education. The program maintains a diverse student population, an
environment in which students from all groups, including the traditionally under-represented, may successfully pursue
the study of Computer Science, and a dedicated and qualified faculty who actively pursue excellence in teaching.
Student Learning Outcomes
FIU Computer Science graduates should be able to achieve the following:
Content/Discipline Knowledge
1. Demonstrate proficiency in various areas of Computer Science including data structures and algorithms, concepts
of programming languages and computer systems.
2. Demonstrate mastery of at least one modern programming language and proficiency in at least one other.
Critical Thinking
1. Demonstrate proficiency in problem solving and application of software engineering techniques.
Oral and Written Communication
1. Demonstrate effective communication skills.
27
Degree Program Student Learning
Outcomes
Direct Assessment Measures
Data Collection and Analysis Plan
(Who Collects? Who analyzes?
When?)
Content/Discipline Knowledge
Demonstrate proficiency in the
foundation areas of Computer Science
including mathematics, discrete
structures, logic and the theory of
algorithms.
Demonstrate proficiency in various
areas of Computer Science including
data structures and algorithms,
concepts of programming languages
and computer systems
Demonstrate proficiency in problem
solving and application of software
engineering techniques
Term project report and deliverables,
presentations
Project report and deliverables will
be submitted by the end of each
semester and will be analyzed by at
least two SCIS faculty
Term project report and deliverables,
presentations
Project report and deliverables will
be submitted by the end of each
semester and will be analyzed by at
least two SCIS faculty
Term project report and deliverables,
presentations
Demonstrate mastery of at least one
modern programming language and
proficiency in at least one other
Term project report and deliverables,
presentations
Project report and deliverables will
be submitted by the end of each
semester and will be analyzed by at
least two SCIS faculty
Project report and deliverables will
be submitted by the end of each
semester and will be analyzed by at
least two SCIS faculty
Critical Thinking
See above
Oral and Written Communication
Demonstrate effective communication
skills
Term project report and deliverables,
presentations
Project report and deliverables will
be submitted by the end of each
semester and will be analyzed by at
least two SCIS faculty
28
12.5
Information Technology Academic Learning Compact
Florida International University
Academic Learning Compact
Name of the Undergraduate Degree Program
Information Technology
Mission Statement
The degree program in Information Technology provides graduates (1) a quality technical education to prepare them
for a productive career, (2) a broad-based education that will form the basis for personal growth and life-long learning,
(3) the communication skills and social and ethical awareness necessary for the effective and responsible practice of
the profession, and (4) an environment in which students from all groups, including the traditionally under-represented,
may successfully pursue the study of Information Technology. The degree program maintains a diverse student
population and a dedicated and qualified faculty who actively pursue excellence in teaching.
Student Learning Outcomes
FIU Information Technology graduates should be able to achieve the following:
Content/Discipline Knowledge
1. Demonstrate practical hands-on expertise in the selection, installation, customizing and maintenance of the state-ofthe-art computing infrastructure.
2. Demonstrate practical proficiency in the selection, installation, customizing and maintenance of the state-of-the-art
software systems.
Critical Thinking
1. Demonstrate proficiency in identifying hardware/software problems and evaluating and selecting appropriate
hardware/software solutions.
Oral and Written Communication
1. Demonstrate effective communication skills.
29
Degree Program Student Learning
Outcomes
Direct Assessment Measures
Data Collection and Analysis Plan
(Who Collects? Who analyzes?
When?)
Content/Discipline Knowledge
Demonstrate practical hands-on
expertise in selection, installation,
customizing and maintenance of the
state-of-the-art computing
infrastructure
Demonstrate practical proficiency in
selection, installation, customizing and
maintenance of the state-of-the-art
software systems
Embedded questions in appropriate
courses (see the curriculum map)
Embedded questions will be included
in course final exam every semester.
Student answers are analyzed by at
least two SCIS faculty
Embedded questions in appropriate
courses (see the curriculum map)
Embedded questions will be included
in course final exam every semester.
Student answers are analyzed by at
least two SCIS faculty
Demonstrate general understanding of
at least one field where Information
Technology plays a central role
Embedded questions in appropriate
courses (see the curriculum map)
Embedded questions will be included
in course final exam every semester.
Student answers are analyzed by at
least two SCIS faculty
Demonstrate understanding of the
social and ethical concerns of the
practice of Information Technology
Embedded questions in appropriate
courses (see the curriculum map)
Embedded questions will be included
in course final exam every semester.
Student answers are analyzed by at
least two SCIS faculty
Term paper, presentations
Term papers are submitted every
semester. Student term papers are
analyzed by at least two SCIS faculty
Critical Thinking
See above
Oral and Written Communication
Demonstrate effective communication
skills
30