Self Assessment
The Discipline
Computer Science, as a discipline has reach the maturity of established fields like mathematics, physics
and Electrical Engineering, where computation is both a deep and intricate field with its own
fundamental challenges and intellectually profound innovations as well as strong and indispensable
interdisciplinary connections with critical importance to diverse fields in engineering, social sciences ,
biological sciences, humanities, etc. Computer Science is the focus discipline for the information
revolution that has transformed society, industry and everyday life patterns. Computers and how they
manage, process and compute information are at the center of the discipline.
a. What trends are currently evident in the discipline, both nationally and internationally? What
subfields are currently growing or attracting major attention, and what subfields are declining?
The field is rapidly changing and is driven by both deep theoretical results as well as pragmatic practical
innovations. Traditionally, Computer Science has been a discipline with no rigid boundaries, either
within or with other discipline, and hence has been interdisciplinary by its very nature with faculty
moving easily between different sub disciplines and fields. Many of the current trends in Computer
Science are foundational, and have their roots in well established subfields. Something about theory.
Designing trustworthy computing systems is a general trend that is expanding, and involves the design of
computing systems that are inherently secure, available and reliable. Examples of such large scale
systems are cloud computing systems. Network science is another recent trend that is based on the study
and analysis of networks, as they manifest themselves in different contexts, be they physical computer
networks, social networks, information networks or biological systems. Much of this has been driven by
the deluge of different types of data that needs to be analyzed, processed and managed. As has been the
trend since its inception, interdisciplinary computing has been a driving force for many of the
innovations in computer science.
b. How is the department positioned in the discipline? What is the strength of the department in each
of its major subfields? How is this strength likely to be affected by anticipated retirements?
The Computer Science Department at UCSB is a medium sized and relatively young department with 33
faculty. Due to our size, we have historically concentrated on emphasizing areas of strength, while at
the same time ensuring broad coverage of all areas of computer science. This approach has been very
successful in ensuring that we have a highly visible stature in some critical areas, visible and growing
presence in the field in general, ensure we have enough diversity to enable us to pursue competitive
large scale grants, and allow us to successfully fulfill our instructional mission to educate and produce
the next generation of computer scientists, both at the undergraduate as well as at the graduate level.
The Computer Science Department has several faculty who have achieved national recognition: Petzold
is a member of the NAE, Ibarra, Kemmerer and Suri are all IEEE fellows, Ibarra and Kemmerer are
1
ACM Fellows and Suri is an ACM Distinguished Scientist, Gilbert and Petzold are SIAM fellows.
Belding, Zhao and Zheng are MIT TR Top 35, and the junior faculty in our department has garnered 15
NSF Career awards over its history. Both the Scientific Computing and the Multimedia groups have
received NSF IGERT awards. Krintz has received the Anita Borg Early Career award. The security
group is viewed by many objective measures as one of the top 5 in the nation. The Alexandria Digital
Library, which was one of the main driving forces in the evolution of search on large image and georeferenced information, was developed under he leadership of Smith. Many of our faculty are playing
leading roles in professional national and international organizations, especially in the areas of
Databases and Information Systems, Networking and Security. Finally, several successful startups were
initiated by CS faculty, including Expertcity (later Citrix online) by Schauser; Teoma (later acquired by
Ask.com) by Yang; Eucalyptus by Wolski; and RightScale by von Eiken, who was an adjunct faculty
while incubating some of the cloud computing ideas at UCSB.
c. What measures are available to assess national standing, and how widely are they accepted in the
discipline? What is the department's standing in the discipline on these measures?
The traditional metrics of excellence are used in Computer Science, with the notable exception that
conference publications are highly valued, often more so than journal publications. Various national and
international metrics have been used for ranking computer science departments. GIVE EXAMPLES.
Unfortunately, the most objective ranking, that is conducted by the Computing Research Association
(CRA) has been mired in controversy. The last ranking by the CRA was conducted in 1994, and we
were ranked 49th. This was just after our department started its PhD program (PhD program in CS
started in 1988, first PhD was granted in 1990). The most visible ranking is the US News and World
Report ranking. This ranking is solely based on the opinions of senior academics, administrators and
members of the industry. In 200X we were ranked 49. We are now ranked 35. This is the most
significant jump in ranking. By analyzing the ranks and scores, our department is .1 shy of ranking #28.
We strongly believe that with a little bit of effort, we would be at that ranking. Our overall goal is to
move into the top 20 within the next 10 years. (work more on this and check numbers).
d. How do other strengths at UCSB contribute to the department's standing in the discipline?
Computer Science has strong relations inter-disciplinary relationships with different departments at
UCSB, and these strengths have been well leveraged. We list some of the most prominent. Within
COE, CS faculty have strong connections with ECE faculty (CE in teaching terms, as we both house the
CE program, as well as strong research connections with the image processing group with large joint
grants) and the ME faculty (various joint appointments, and joint grants). CS faculty have strong
connections with the Media Arts and Technology Program (with students supervision and joint grants),
CITS, Biology and Physics (joint appointments and student supervision), and Chicano/a Studies (joint
grant).
e. What forms of extramural funding are available in the discipline? How does the department
compare to others nationally in its record of funding?
The department has been very successful in terms of extramural funding. The main sources are NSF,
NIH, DOE, DOD, DARPA, Army, etc. as well as a significant number of grants from industry,
including Google, Intel, Cisco, etc. The department has also been very successful in soliciting donations
2
that resulted in 4 Chairs and funding for graduate students. When compared to others, the department’s
funds are very good.
THE FACULTY
a. Comment on the continuing productivity and influence of the faculty.
The faculty are very productive and their influence on the field can be detected in various ways. We
enumerate some of the highlights:
In the Foundations of Computer Science, we have two strong groups covering Algorithms
and Complexity; and Computational Science and Engineering. These 2 groups are well
established with members in national and international institutions including the National
Academy of Engineering, ACM, IEEE, AAAS, ASME, SIAM, IASTED, the European Academy
of Science and the Academia Europaea. Ibarra was awarded the Blaise Pascal medal, and both
Ibarra and Petzold are included as ISI highly cited Researchers (2003, 3006). The junior faculty
have been awarded NSF Career awards and a Sloan Research Fellowship. The CSE group has
garnered the highly competitive NSF IGERT. The theory group is expecting a retirement in the
near future and would clearly benefit from a generalist computational hire.
The Systems group, which broadly includes networks, distributed systems, programming
languages and architecture is quite diverse with highly visible impact both academically as well
as in the industrial world. The junior faculty were awarded NSF Career and Anita Borg Early
Career awards, 3 were chosen as MIT Technology Review’s top investigators, a World
Technology Network Fellow, and Computer World Top IT innovators under 40. Chaired some
of the major conferences, including MobiCom, Secon, MobiHoc and SIGPLAN leadership.
Several keynote presentations at major conference including CONCUR, PASTE and
MEMOCODE. Wolski founded Eucalyptus, the leading open source cloud computing software
system has had a significant impact on cloud computing. Yang, co-founder of Taoma and
Ask.com, The Neptune middleware developed at UCSB also became the cornerstone at Ask.com
for providing fault tolerance, replication management, and resource scheduling to manage
thousands of online service machines, and has garnered several highly visible awards in the
domain of searching and the internet.
The Security group is a small but very visible and nationally highly ranked group. In addition
to including an ACM and IEEE fellow, the junior faculty were awarded NSF Career awards,
several keynote speeches in diverse forums, and has been able to garner large funding, including
multiple MURIs. Any retirements from this group in the near future would need to be
immediately replaced to sustain and maintain the high level of activity and visibility.
The Information and Intelligent Systems area includes the database and information
management group and the human computing and vision group. Strong inter-disciplinary group,
with high impact and visibility, originally with the Alexandria Digital library, an NSF IGERT,
and currently an Army Information Network grant. Leading positions in the main research
venues including VLDB, PODS, SIGSPATIAL, SIGMOD, MultiMedia, and Multimodal
Interfaces. The junior faculty were all awarded NSF Career awards. This group has also placed
several of their PhD students in leading academic institutions, including ETH, Purdue,
University of Florida and Ohio State University.
b. Comment on the balance in the department in terms of senior and junior appointments, diversity
(women and underrepresented national minorities), and Senate versus non-Senate appointments.
3
Describe the supply of potential faculty recruits, in relation to the need to achieve an appropriate
balance in these categories.
The department has 22 Full Professors, 8 Associate Professor, 2 Assistant professors, 1 LSOE, and 1
PLSOE. From the Full Professors, one is retiring end of June 2010, and we expect at least 2 more
retirements in the next 5 years. The chart below breaks down the gender of our faculty by rank and
compares with the national average. Total, our department faculty is 14.5% female, while nationally
departments are 16.6% female (Taulbee data 2007-08). In terms of under-represented national
minorities (urm), one of our faculty members is of Hispanic descent (2.94% of our faculty). According
to the 2007-08 Taulbee survey, 20.6% of Ph.D. graduates in CS were female, while 3.3% were urm. Of
all Ph.D. graduates, it is not known what percentage of the total and what percentage of women and
urms pursue academic careers. The data indicate that we are slightly below the national averages in
percentage of female and minority faculty. In the past 10 years, however, we have made drastic
improvements in hiring (and retaining) female faculty.
Full Professor
Associate
Professor
Assistant
Professor
Teaching
Faculty
UCSB CS
Total
22
8
UCSB CS Females
(%)
2 (9%)
2 (25%)
National Female %
(Taulbee data)
11.7%
15.4%
2
0 (0%)
21.7%
2
1 (50%)
27.2%
c. Comment on the balance of teaching and research specialties in relation to programmatic need.
How does the mix of teaching specialties reflect current and anticipated trends in the discipline, and
demand by graduate and undergraduate students?
The research interests of the faculty cover most areas of Computer Science, especially those that cover
the current most popular trends in the field. Our recent hire of Ben Hardekopf has ensured that we have
adequate coverage of programming languages and compilers, especially in terms of our undergraduate
offerings. Xifeng Yan has started a graduate course in data mining, an area of increasing interest
especially among graduate students. The retirement of Terry Smith, does leave a gap, from an
educational point of view, to cover Machine Learning, which is also an area of increasing interest among
students. A hire in this area, as described in our development plan would complement our nascent
strength in Data Mining as well as the research and educational demands in different sub-areas.
We have recently revamped our lower division undergrad courses. They have been redesigned and
updated to reflect current industry needs while still giving students a broad skillset that will outlast any
current trends. Another skill that needed by our undergraduates, especially when they pursue an
industrial career is the ability to groups and to have good software engineering expertise. These skills
are developed using pair programming in our lower division classes and several project-based courses,
capped with our newly restructured capstone courses.
4
To ensure that our graduate students are exposed to the latest innovations in Computer Science, faculty
are encourage to teach graduate 290's on their research topic, which give graduate students timely
content. Our seminar courses,595's, are another way of discussing ad hoc and often inter-disciplinary
the most recent research results. We also invite local industry leaders to teach courses that cover the
latest trends and results, especially those with strong interest in industry, e.g, Thorsten Von Eicken, the
founder of the successful cloud computing company, RightScale, explored and developed many of the
foundational themes in Cloud Computing in a graduate CS 290 course as early as 2007.
d. What is the faculty instructional workload policy?
Full time faculty teach 3 courses each, usually two undergraduate and one graduate. Faculty are also
encouraged, and usually do offer CS595 2 credit hour seminar classes.
e. Are faculty members sufficiently active in the pursuit of extramural funds in light of funding
possibilities?
Yes, as the overall funding numbers indicate, CS faculty are very active, and pursue diverse funding
opportunities.
g. Describe and evaluate the current system of governance in the department. Is there broad faculty
participation in departmental governance and on campus committees?
The department is very democratic by nature and most critical decisions are made by general votes by
the entire faculty. There are committees for undergraduate curriculum and affairs, graduate admission
and affairs, recruitment (when there are hiring positions), public relations, diversity, acceleration and
strategic planning. The department meets as a whole for 2 hour faculty meeting, typically averaging 5
per 10 week quarter, depending on the need. Critical recommendations made by the committees are
presented, discussed and voted on by the faculty. This structure has worked well for our needs and kept
the decision making process cohesive and collective. Due to the increasing size of the department, this
collective decision making model is under discussion in the area of merits and promotions. Currently,
all cases are discussed at a faculty meeting. The acceleration committee is a consultative committee,
which is convened to give advice to a faculty requesting acceleration or to the chair. A year ago, this
model was modified to require all merit cases be discussed during a single day, so called Merit Day, to
provide more uniformity.
Faculty are active in the department affairs, and faculty meeting are well attended. On a campus level,
computer science faculty have been active, including in recent year, leadership of the Committee on
Academic Personnel and The Graduate Council, as well as membership in Planning and Budget,
International Education, Research and Instructional Resources, the Graduate and Undergraduate
Councils, and the executive committees of the College of Engineering and of Creative Studies. Our
faculty has also been active in administrative roles, including Almeroth as Associate Dean of COE, Turk
as Chair of Media Arts and technology and Chong as Director of Computer Engineering.
5
GRADUATE PROGRAM
Self Assessment
a. What are the goals of the graduate program(s), and what is the rationale for its content, structure
(or lack thereof), and specialties? Discuss any graduate curricular problems and efforts to solve them.
The size and composition of our graduate program has changed significantly in the last ten years. Our
graduate program is about 108 Ph.D. students and 40 MS students, compared with 70 Ph.D. and 52 MS
students in the 2000-01 academic year. We have intentionally grown our Ph.D. program while shrinking
our masters program to create a more research-centric environment for our students, as well as to
improve the quality of our program and its graduates.
The purpose of our Ph.D. program is to prepare students for research and teaching positions in
universities and colleges, and for research and leadership positions in industry and government. The
goal of the program is to train the students in the methods of scientific inquiry and independent research.
Graduating students should be well instructed in the theory and practice of computer science principles.
They should be able to plan and execute a research project, organize, analyze, and write the results, and
present them clearly to a knowledgeable audience. This is accomplished through advanced course work
and active participation with the faculty in their research programs. Our MS program is mostly a
terminal degree program, with the goal of training the next generation of information technology
professionals. However, in some cases exceptional MS students transition into our Ph.D. program; this
typically happens with a few students each year.
Ph.D. students typically serve as TAs during the first year, an experience that, along with a number of
in-house presentations, is designed to expose students to the demands and excitement of teaching and
course administration. Class presentations for both Ph.D. and MS students provide our students with
valuable opportunities for learning the important skills of presentation and group interaction. Many of
our graduate courses are project-based, which teaches all students the skills of identifying an open-ended
problem, developing a solution, and implementing and testing that solution to determine the quality of
its outcome. Many courses that implement projects also require in-class presentations about those
projects.
Our Ph.D. students are required to meet breadth and depth requirements in preparation for a research
career. The breadth requirement is met through a set of 10 graduate courses. Of the 10 courses, 2 must
be completed in the systems area (from a set of 6 designated courses), and 2 in theory area (from a set of
6
6). At least half of the courses are typically completed during the student’s first year, while the
remainder is completed before graduation. The depth requirement consists of a Ph.D. major area
examination in the targeted specialization area and is usually completed in the second or third year of
study. This consists of an oral presentation and a literature survey that demonstrate competence and
preparation in the chosen specialty. The breadth and depth requirements are followed by a Ph.D.
proposal and then a defense at the completion of research. Students usually start their research during
the second year, but in some cases start during their first year.
The MS program offers three tracks: thesis, project or examination. Students in each track prepare a
plan of study comprised of 6 courses from three areas: theory, systems, and applications. Students
pursuing the examination option take an additional set of 3 courses and complete their degree with a
comprehensive exam. Students pursuing the project option take a minimum of 6 units of directed
research with a research advisor, write a project report and give a public presentation of their work.
Students pursuing the thesis option complete a thesis under the advisement of a 3-member thesis
committee and give a public defense of the thesis. The department also has a 5-year BS/MS program to
encourage BS students to pursue a MS degree.
We offer a broad variety of graduate level courses and seminars that are a direct outcome of faculty
specialties. We have regularly offered courses on many topics, including theory, databases, networks
and wireless networks, security, programming languages, architecture, algorithms, graphics, computer
vision, and machine learning, among others. We also offer “290” courses, which many be offered one
time or multiple times, and are typically closely related to faculty research interests. Recent 290
offerings have included, e.g. Sparse Matrix Algorithms, Program Analysis, Advanced Data Mining,
Networking for Multimedia, Green Computing, Querying and Indexing Contemporary Data, and
Cryptographic Engineering. Finally, we also regularly offer “595” seminars. These are paper-centric, 2unit courses (as opposed to 4-unit courses) that involve weekly meetings to discuss recent publications
on a chosen topic. Students typically prepare presentations of the papers and participate in group
discussions, giving students the opportunity to practice their presentation and technical reading skills.
b. Evaluate the department's success in attracting and retaining graduate students. How would one
characterize the applicant pool at the graduate level in terms of quality, size, diversity, etc.? How is
the program advertised? What procedures and criteria are used to select the students for admission?
What percentage of graduate students admitted in the past five years have had an undergraduate
GPA of under 3.0?
Our graduate applicant pool has remained quite strong. At the PhD level, we typically have between
about 250 and 300 applicants annually (with an unusual spike of 349 in 2007). The average PhD
applicant has a GPA above 3.5 and quantitative GRE scores of 80% or better. At the MS level, we have
between 200 and 250 applicants. A faculty committee makes admission decisions based on GPA, GRE
scores, recommendation letters, statement of purpose and intended research area of the (PhD) student.
We target a roughly steady size of student body in both the PhD and MS programs. We admit between
15% and 20% of PhD applicants; our “take rate” at the PhD level has grown from 34% in 2007 to 57%
in 2009. At the MS level we admit roughly 20%-30% of applicants, with a take rate typically in the
neighborhood of 30%. In the past five years we have admitted only one PhD applicant and two MS
applicants with GPA below 3.0 (about 1.5% of admissions). Our applicant pool is strongly
international, though the fraction of domestic applicants has trended generally upward in the past few
7
years and now (2010) stands at 21% PhD / 17% MS. Our student body is also highly international (60%
are non-resident aliens), with the largest international representation from China and India. Like the
field of CS as a whole, our applicant pool is less diverse than we would like: In 2010, only ten of our
graduate applicants were domestic URMs, and 21% of our applicants were female. Besides our web
presence, the advertising we do for the graduate program is primarily targeted at increasing its diversity,
as described under question (c) below.
c. What efforts are being made to recruit and retain students and to design the curriculum so as to
achieve an appropriate ethnic and gender balance in the department?
We have several strong efforts in the department to recruit and retain a diverse graduate student body.
We have been particularly successful in the area of gender balance (considered against the background
of the field of CS): In 2009-2010 our graduate student population is 23% female (43 of 147 students).
Our Ph.D. student body is 26.4% female, compared to the 2007-08 national average of 19.3% female
(Taulbee data). As part of our FireUP program, CS faculty visited and made a presentation about
graduate school in general and UCSB graduate research in particular at specific CSU and UC campuses
whose URM's were likely to consider UCSB because of its geographical proximity to their
undergraduate campuses (Cal Poly, SLO,CSU Channel Islands, UC Merced, CSULA, UCSD). In
addition, UCSB hosted a Graduate Preview Day, inviting URM seniors from nearby universities,
organizing informational meetings, graduate student panels, and one-on-one meetings with faculty
members. All three seniors who attended for computer science applied for fall 2010 admission. One
was accepted. Once a student is accepted, we match the student with an existing graduate student with
something in common (undergraduate institution, gender, ethnicity, home state, etc.) for personalized
recruiting. Female students are matched with two students - one female and a second with something
else in common. This allows females to ask questions they would not be comfortable asking a male
(such as campus safety). The CSE IGERT and ICB Summer Applied Biotechnology Research
Experience programs, headed by CS Prof. Petzold, are developing and strengthening our relationship
with Jackson State University and are currently working on similar relationships with Florida
Agricultural and Mechanical University, CSU Channel Islands, and UC Merced. In 2008, CS faculty and
staff visited Jackson State University for the Louis Stokes Mississippi Alliance for Minority
Participation (LSMAMP) Annual Symposium, where Prof. Petzold spoke about her work, the two
programs, and the graduate research being done at UCSB. Female CS students are retained through an
active club, WiCS (Women in Computer Science). It holds a minimum of one event each quarter,
beginning with a kickoff at a female faculty or staff member's house. WiCS serves as both an academic
and social networking group for our students. We do not have any graduate curriculum design efforts
targeted specifically at diversity.
d. How is the quality of student performance assessed at various stages of students’ graduate careers?
Do graduate students’ grades show a sufficient range? Do they do so early enough to identify
students who lack the appropriate preparation and motivation?
For PhD students the department has instituted a progress check every year. Both the students and their
advisors are notified of the expected versus the actual progress of each student towards the degree,
which is determined by the Graduate Affairs Committee. At the end of each academic year we have a
faculty meeting whose sole purpose is the presentation and the discussion of the status of each and every
one of our PhD students. Each student receives a letter indicating the outcome of the evaluation and
8
expected next milestones, and any students receiving a “concerned” or “unsatisfactory” evaluation must
meet with the graduate advisor to discuss their progress. The evaluation process keeps students abreast
of the requirements and the expected normative time in which to complete them. There are also
requirements and a number of milestones for the degree. The students have to pass an oral Major area
exam. Following this, they are required to take a proposal exam and a final thesis defense. Regular
meetings with research advisors occur throughout graduate work.
Grades in the range A+ through F grades are given, although the majority of the grades fall into the B- to
A+ range. Ph.D. students must maintain a GPA of 3.5. Both Ph.D. students must earn at least a B in
each course for that course to count towards the course requirement. MS students must earn at least a B
in each of their four major area courses. A student is put on probation if their GPA drops below a 3.0,
so this prompts action by the department. The MS program usually takes less than two years, and early
feedback is based on the GPA.
e. What is the attrition/success rate (in terms of advancement to candidacy and graduation) for the
department? What factors contribute to the department’s attrition/success rate? For example, how
does the rate compare between those who entered with a 3.0 GPA or higher and those who entered
with a GPA under 3.0? Are there differences in rates related to gender and ethnicity?
Approximately 18% of our PhD students leave without completing a PhD. At least half of these
students leave with a MS, while the remainder leave without a degree. While we do not keep statistics
on the MS students, anecdotally we know it is much rarer that an MS student leaves without a degree.
We believe the biggest factor that contributes to our Ph.D. program's success rate is our annual PhD
progress checks, which ensure that each student is on-track. Any student that is flagged as “concerned”
or “unsatisfactory” must meet with the graduate advisor to discuss a remediation plan. Assignment of a
faculty advisor to each entering student, and the accessibility of our staff support, also contributes to our
graduation rate. Factors that typically cause a PhD student to leave without a degree include two-body
problems, change in career goals, and family concerns. In the last 5 years, the department admitted no
MS students and only 1 PhD student with a GPA below a 3.0. This first year PhD student seems to be
doing fine in her coursework and has started on research with an advisor. We are not aware of any
differences in the rates related to gender and ethnicity. This could be because we do not explicitly track
these statistics. However if we consider the students who failed to complete the PhD, there does not
seem to be any correlation to gender or ethnicity. We note that the department has had 1% or less of
underrepresented students in the last 5 years.
f. Evaluate the adequacy of support for graduate students. What percentage of students are funded,
and how competitive are department financial offers with offers from other institutions? How are
financial aid and fellowship decisions reached in the department?
100% of our PhD students are funded. We typically admit PhD students with a five-year support offer.
The financial packages offered to PhD students may consist of campus fellowships (merit and diversity),
and/or college and departmental fellowships. Some PhD students are supported as RAs beginning in
their first year; and the remaining students (the majority of all incoming students) receive TAships with
fellowships to cover nonresident tuition. PhD students begin their research no later than the second
year, and most become RAs during their second year. While our support packages are generally
adequate for living in Santa Barbara, the packages are less competitive than those that are offered by
9
other universities. In particular, the raw dollar amount is typically less, and with a higher cost of living,
students often indicate that they are concerned about the financial offer and may tend to favor other
offers based on financial considerations. As a result, we believe that we are unable to attract some top
students due to the inability to compete financially. We often try to supplement financial offers to top
students through money raised from donors, and this has helped in our recruiting success. Ideally, we
would like to be able to offer more competitive financial packages. We do not guarantee funding to our
MS students, but the department currently supports just under half of its MS students as TAs or RAs; a
number of others find jobs on campus in other departments. The Graduate Admissions Committee
makes financial aid and fellowship decisions for newly admitted students, with input from the faculty
regarding the availability of RAships.
g. How does the department provide academic advising? How does the department communicate the
requirements of the program to incoming students? What other assistance does the department
regularly provide to graduate students (e.g., tutorial help, study space, specialized libraries)?
The department assigns an academic faculty advisor to every incoming student. The faculty member
advises and helps the student prepare their study plan. A PhD student eventually finds a research
advisor for advising, typically during the first or second year of study. New graduate students share a
common computer lab. Once involved in research, students move to specific faculty research labs
where each student typically receives their own desk, computer, and storage space. The program
requirements are communicated to incoming students through a Fall orientation, and are always
available online. We also provide students with a Graduate Student Handbook, containing all rules and
guidelines. During the Fall orientation, one or more faculty members and the graduate program
assistants make presentations that overview PhD and MS program requirements, and provide guidance
for how best to complete those requirements. Information about faculty research is conveyed through a
seminar series in the Winter quarter every year, where each faculty member makes a presentation about
his/her research area.
h. What is the average time-to-degree for master’s students? Doctoral students? How do these
averages compare with averages for similar programs in the UC or at other major institutions of
higher education? How does the department ensure that students progress toward completion in a
timely and orderly manner?
The average time-to-degree for master’s students is 1.75 years (as of 2008-09). For the PhD students,
this number is 5.75 years (as of 2008-09), and our normative time is 5 years. We are roughly the same
in time to degree for the MS and PhD degrees within the UCSB College of Engineering departments,
and about the same as the campus average for the MS degree. The department's time to PhD is one year
less than the campus average. We ensure PhD students make timely progress towards graduation
through the annual review of all PhD students. During this evaluation we check their progress in
coursework as well as in research. If a student is found to be making insufficient progress, steps can be
taken to get them back on track. We believe that in this way potential problems can be identified early
on and prevented from harming the student’s progress. MS student progress is evaluated through their
submission of an MS study plan. We also have a published time line (web site and grad student
handbook) for PhD students where departmental expectations are clearly stated.
10
i. Describe the climate for graduate study that the department fosters (a) in general, (b) for women,
and (c) for historically underrepresented students? If there are problems, what specific efforts are
being made to address them?
We believe that the climate for graduate study for all groups of students is conducive to good research
and good student morale; we believe that the student survey results back up this claim. There are
frequent student-faculty interactions inside and outside the classrooms. The department has regular
coffee hours, where students and faculty interact in an informal setting. We also have 2 annual
faculty/graduate student BBQs and a holiday party. Once a year, typically in the fall, our students
organize and run a graduate student workshop, where they solicit submissions from their fellow students
and a student program committee evaluates the submissions. There is strong industry involvement in the
workshop. Twice yearly the chair has an open meeting with the graduate students to hear any
compliments, complaints, or suggestions for improvement.
We have made it a priority to improve the climate for women in our department through the concerted
hiring of female faculty (4 in 10 years) and recruiting of female graduate students. In the last 5 years,
we have seen the percentage of female graduate students grow from 19% to 23%. With this growth we
have established a graduate Women in Computer Science (WiCS) student group, which hosts frequent
professional and social activities. Our numbers for under-represented minority (URM) students are,
unfortunately, much lower, only 3% of our graduate population. We have been working to recruit more
students in this category through securing funds from Graduate Division, through building recruiting
partnerships with key CSU and UC campuses, and through applying for a DoE GAANN award.
j. What assistance is available in career planning and job placement? Comment on the department's
placement record for graduate students who have received their degrees in the past five years.
Academia day and connections to companies for industry jobs are the foremost efforts by the
department. Our Academia day is a day of presentations, panels and events highlighting academia as a
professional choice. Post-doctoral positions are also discussed, and interviewing tips are given. Our
contacts with major companies (Google, Microsoft, Citrix, etc) and the positive record of our former
students result in many companies actively recruiting on campus. Job placement is also done through the
faculty's own contacts with companies. We do not track MS students like we do the PhD, although it is
safe to say the majority of MS students get a job in industry. Our top students often join our PhD
program or, less frequently, apply to PhD programs at other universities. Very few leave with no job or
further graduate study plans.
For PhDs, the positions they obtained when they left UCSB are as follows:
Year
200809
200708
2006-
Indust
ry
15
PostDo
c
3
Research
er
0
Tenuretrack
1
Lectur
er
0
Selfemployed
0
15
1
1
3
0
0
12
4
1
3
0
0
11
07
200506
200405
10
1
0
2
0
0
6
1
1
4
1
1
k. How would the department characterize the results of the graduate student survey? Are they
generally representative of the experience of graduate students in the department?
The results of the graduate student survey indicate that by and large most of our graduate students are
very or highly satisfied with the department and its offerings. In nearly every category the percent of
students that were highly or very satisfied in computer science was above that of the campus; in some
cases, it was well above that of the campus. We believe that students in our department are treated fairly
and with respect and are given great assistance from faculty and staff towards the completion of their
degree. The survey results confirm this. In general, students feel that the strengths of our department
are the faculty and research; the mentoring of graduate students; the positive attitude of faculty, staff and
students; and the commitment of the department to its students.
The areas where the survey indicates that the department should improve are in providing better
guidance to our teaching assistants, providing better career advising and job placement assistance.
Written results indicate that some students are dissatisfied with the quality and location of space (i.e.
some research labs are in remote trailers); the quality of our graduate student lab facilities for entering
students that are not in a specific research lab; the opportunities for social or technical interaction with
students outside of their own research group; and the diversity in our courses (specifically, asking for
more AI and theory). We believe that each of these are valid concerns and do represent actual problems
within our department.
l. Describe the participation of graduate students in the governance of the department.
Every departmental faculty committee includes a graduate student representative to ensure that student
issues are considered and to give experience to future academics. These committees include faculty
recruitment, facilities, graduate admissions, colloquium, undergraduate curriculum, and diversity. In
each committee, students are allowed (and encouraged) to voice their opinion and participate in any
discussion. Additionally, the Department's graduate students send representatives to UCSB's Graduate
Student Association assembly to participate in campus-wide issues concerning graduate education. This
includes graduate health insurance, co-sponsoring of cultural, social and academic events and
participation in many campus-wide committees. Finally, twice yearly the department chair holds an
open meeting with the graduate students. This is an opportunity to voice compliments, complaints, and
suggestions for improvement. These meetings are typically well-attended.
12
UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAM
a. What is the rationale for the department's undergraduate instructional programs? How does the
department ensure that curricular offerings permit majors to complete their degrees in a timely
manner (i.e., four years, 180 units)? Discuss any undergraduate curricular problems and efforts to
solve them.
The Department of Computer Science (CS) offers a B.S. in Computer Science in the College of
Engineering (COE), and a B.A. in Computer Science though the College of Letters and Science. In
addition, CS is the "cognate department" for the B.S. in Computer Science in the College of Creative
Studies (CCS).
A common rationale for these degree programs is to balanced theory and practice. Many of our courses
require programming assignments and projects where the student must address design and
implementation details, which are, for the most part, abstracted away in theoretical discussions. To
complement required courses, we offer a rich mix of elective courses that include such topics as
databases, cryptography, computer communication networks, network computing, computer graphics,
machine intelligence, software engineering, security and privacy, and computer vision. The three degree
programs can be distinguished as follows:
a. The B.S. program is an ABET-accredited degree program that focuses on a deep knowledge of
Computer Science and is suitable for a broad range of students.
b. The B.A. program offers three distinct emphases: Computational Biology, Computational Geography,
and Computational Economics. Since the last PRP review, CS has worked with the biology
departments (EEMB/MCDB), and with the departments of Geography and Economics to design
a degree program that is primarily a degree program in Computer Science, but which includes a
core of courses in these other fields. Work in these three areas requires increasing amounts of
computation, and there is a sense that a combined degree program would attract students that
might otherwise not choose CS.
c. The B.S. program in the College of Creative Studies is designed to recruit the most talented and
imaginative undergraduates. The program offers an accelerated lower division curriculum and an
emphasis on undergraduate research.
We offer all required CS courses at least twice a year. Electives are offered once a year. They are
sufficiently plentiful, and degree requirements sufficiently flexible, that students normally do not delay
graduation for lack of available elective courses. Also, some courses in related areas offered by other
departments may be counted as major area electives.
There are two major initiatives underway related to our undergraduate programs. The most
comprehensive of these is the lower division curriculum course restructuring. This effort is in response
to student feedback and performance over the past five years. Our goal for this course restructuring is to
better enable all students to build a solid foundation in computer science and improve their overall
educational experience in our department. The department began investigating how best to implement
this course restructuring in Fall 2007. We started to offer the resulting restructured courses in Fall 2009.
All topics covered by our current courses are covered by our new courses. However, to increase the
depth in understanding of the topics and to make the classes more engaging and intuitive, we present the
topics in new ways and introduce recently emerged and successful pedagogical practices.
13
We have identified a set of outcomes that we hope to achieve with our restructuring effort, based on
feedback on our curriculum from our students (graduated and current) and based on our experiences
with this curriculum and our students throughout the program. Our expected outcomes are (i) an
increased pedagogical emphasis on problem-solving with computers, (ii) inclusion of real-world
examples, tools, systems, and modern pedagogical practices within the curriculum, (iii) better
preparation of students in the foundational concepts needed for the upper division computer science
courses, (iv) improved retention and recruitment statistics throughout the lower division, and (v) a more
fluid transition between all courses in the programming-based problem-solving sequence and
consistency in topic coverage and teaching quality throughout the lower division.
To achieve these goals our restructuring effort:






Introduces seven new courses. One course from the original curriculum remains.
Provides a set of four classes that comprise a tightly integrated sequence focused on developing
programming foundations and that employ a "spiral" model.
Targets problem-solving and confidence-building.
Employs recent successful pedagogical practices, and modern tools and systems.
Provides a course for students with no programming background with an introduction to
programming that is fun and exciting.
Includes topics that are needed for the more advanced content of the upper division courses.
In particular, our courses will provide (i) more hands-on experience with writing programs and solving
problems, (ii) novel classroom activities that facilitate teacher-student interaction, (iii) programming
assignments and problem sets that are more realistic and interesting to students and that reveal the
importance of the topics in the larger context of computer science, technology and the world around us,
(iv) use of program development tools, e.g., debuggers, integrated development environments, testing
systems, documentation systems, collaboration tools, and (v) team-based and end-to-end (design,
implementation, demonstration, presentation) program development and collaboration.
We also are taking a fresh look at the BA program, which has not been as popular with students as we
had hoped. Of the three emphases, computational economics has drawn the interest of a handful of
students. Computational biology has a few students and the third area has virtually no students. The BA
program's goal was to combine other disciplines with computational thinking. There seem to be some
issues with the current implementation: inflexibility with respect to emphases and insufficient
advertisement to students. We have studied this problem and discuss our plans in the development plan.
b. Describe departmental honors programs and projects, and the educational experiences they provide
to qualified students.
In 2009, we established a Distinction in the Major Program (DIMAP). The top 10% of students are
eligible to apply for admission to this program. In order to receive Distinction in the Major, admitted
students need to complete either a Research Project under the supervision of a faculty member or a
Capstone Project under the supervision of the instructors of the capstone project course sequence. All
students who participate in the DIMAP give 30-minute public presentations of their projects, which are
evaluated by at least two faculty members, one of which is the student’s advisor. Students who receive
successful evaluations receive Distinction in the Major. Four students participated in the inaugural year
14
of the program, one of whom was the recipient of the College of Engineering Undergraduate Research
award (Casey Cipriani, advised by CS Dept. Faculty member Teofilo Gonzalez.)
CS is also the "cognate department" for the Computer Science program in the College of Creative
Studies which provides another path for academically gifted students to pursue Computer Science. CCS
students are required to complete their upper division courses from those offered by CS. Some CCS
students take graduate courses offered by CS, and engage in undergraduate research with CS faculty
members.
c. How is undergraduate research encouraged in the department, and how successful has the
department been in this regard in recent years?
Out of our thirty-four ladder and SOE track faculty members, twenty-six (76%) have involved
undergraduates in their research activities during the PRP study period. The department also introduced
a Distinction in the Major Program (DIMAP) in 2009 (see response to question b).
Phill Conrad has developed an undergraduate variable-unit course that allows undergraduates to prepare
for research projects with faculty. It is a combination of practical information about the academic
environment from a faculty perspective, CS research methodology, observing faculty research
presentations, and participating in question / answer sessions with faculty members. This resulted in
several students working with faculty members. Diana Franklin and Phill Conrad recently received an
NSF grant for a summer outreach program for middle school students which will hire at least two
freshman/sophomore computer science students each summer. This opportunity is intended as an
incentive for students to do well in their introductory courses, to receive personalized advising, to be
encouraged to enroll in the research course, and to participate in future undergraduate research.
d. What efforts are made to increase the diversity of undergraduate majors and to retain them to
completion of the degree? What efforts are made to increase the diversity of undergraduate majors
and to retain them to completion of the degree?
To encourage superior prospective undergraduate students to enter the major, CS department faculty and
staff have participated in the Chancellor's Regional Receptions throughout the study period. These
receptions are annual events designed to recruit the top admitted students to come to UCSB. We have
also sent letters to the Regents Scholars that have been admitted to the CS program at UCSB to offer
them a special welcome, and some of the same opportunities offered to students in the CCS CS
program—including an accelerated path through the lower division curriculum. Over the last three
years, we have increased our faculty presence and student project presentations at Spring Insight to
better connect with prospective undergraduates.
To retain superior undergraduate students, we added the "Distinction in the Major" program starting
with the 2009 school year. Four students participated in this program, each completing an undergraduate
research project under the direction of a CS department faculty member. We also offer a 5-year
combined BS/MS program, and encourage all of our students to participate in professional
organizations, such as the student chapter of the Association for Computing Machinery.
We currently have several efforts to recruit and retain a diverse undergraduate student body. Several of
our initiatives are informed by research (by Jane Margolis of UCLA, and others) showing that women
15
and minority students are less likely than their white male counterparts to be aware of a Computer
Science career option prior to entering college. Diana Franklin, Gerardo Aldana, and Phill Conrad
recently received an NSF grant for a summer outreach program for middle school students targeted
towards females and Latina/os, which starts in middle school and continues through high school—the
intent is to plant seeds that may lead to increased CS applicants to our department. An outreach program
through UCSB's CSNI (California NanoSystems Institute), called Family Science Nights, includes a
computer science component run by Diana Franklin. This event is held at several local middle schools.
Finally, we have redesigned our lower-division curriculum, including our GE introduction to computing
course, to make it more attractive to students who have not declared computer science as a major. We
hope that this gentler, more engaging introduction to computing appeals to a broader student spectrum.
Several initiatives are under way to retain undergraduate CS majors across the board, and with particular
attention to those from underrepresented groups. The lower division curriculum redesign, we hope, will
increase the percentage of females and under-represented minority students that take upper division
courses. Last year, we started a new club, WISH (Women in Software and Hardware), allowing females
in computer engineering and computer science to socialize, network, and support each other in the
major. This spring quarter is the first quarter the Department, in conjunction with ACM, has paid tutors
to help students in lower division courses. They have coordinated with Los Ingenieros to provide
tutoring with the aim of helping minority students. Finally, we have offered courses in which students
use computer science skills to help the community as part of outreach efforts. We have established
partnerships with Girls Incorporated, local high schools, and other community non-profit organizations.
In fall 2010, we begin a pilot advising program for freshman. Among this pilot’s goals is retention of
students from underrepresented groups—students that leave due to feeling isolated or to inadequate
performance
e. Describe the departmental major advising and general advising programs. What role does the
faculty play?
Advising of students is a shared responsibility between the College of Engineering Undergraduate
Office and the faculty in the Computer Science Department. We briefly describe below those activities
undertaken by the Department.
The CS Undergraduate Advisor gives advice about CS-related issues to the students. The CS
Undergraduate Advisor also may give advice about the CS programs, internships, jobs, career options,
graduate school, electives, etc. The CS Undergraduate Program Assistant helps students plan their
schedules, discusses issues about taking courses concurrently, etc.
The CS Undergraduate Advisor has 3 - 5 office hours a week. In addition, the CS Undergraduate
Program Assistant is available all the time to answer day-to-day questions, to collect and return
petitions, forms, etc. General advising and announcements are disseminated through the ‘ugrads’
mailing list. Advice also is given to CS pre-major/major students during yearly meetings, which are
enumerated below:
New Student Orientation: Participants: Undergraduate Adviser, Staff Undergraduate Assistant, and
incoming freshmen and transfer students. It occurs on an orientation day before Fall quarter.
Pre-major meeting: Participants: Undergraduate Adviser, Staff Undergraduate Assistant, and
16
students declared in the pre-major. It occurs during the seventh week of winter quarter.
Senior Focus group: Participants: Undergraduate Adviser and a small group of graduating seniors. It
is held every three years in June, and is one of our ABET assessments.
(New) CS Major meeting: This is a two-part meeting. Participants: All and only CS majors (as
opposed to CS premajor students, who are served by meetings 1. and 2. above). It occurs on
those years that there is no Senior Focus Group:
The department also plans a pilot study of individual undergraduate advising by individual faculty
members that will occur in the academic year 2010 - 2011. The proposal for this pilot study is part of
our Development Plan. The results will be assessed and evaluated. If all goes well, we will upgrade our
undergraduate advising to include wider faculty involvement.
f. How does the department monitor the quality of its undergraduates at the different stages of their
studies, and how does it handle underperforming majors? Comment on departmental grading trends.
The department employs a premajor to ensure the quality of the undergraduates that transition from the
lower division to the upper division. Students are contacted by the College of Engineering, if they fall
below a certain grade point average in the lower division or perform poorly repeatedly in classes. We
provide both staff and faculty undergraduate advisors for students to consult throughout their careers.
They advise students, help them find tutoring resources, and help them transition to other majors, if
necessary. The College and the ACM provide tutoring services. The department coordinates with both,
ensuring adequate courses coverage; the faculty encourage top upper division students to tutor.
We analyzed course-wise average GPA data over the past six years. Grades in courses have been
consistent over this period. We will continue to use this data to provide feedback to faculty and to detect
outliers that we can address, if/when they occur.
The percentage of premajors that become majors historically is around 40%. Our data confirms that this
historical trend was evident over the past 6 years, in particular. We will continue to track this data as we
consider ways of improving student quality, reducing attrition, and increasing diversity.
g. What efforts are under way to improve instruction? What sources of evidence (e.g., student
evaluations, peer evaluation) does the department use to assess the quality of teaching? How is good
teaching effectively encouraged? Comment on the mix of ladder-rank faculty, lecturers, and teaching
assistants in undergraduate instruction and on the level of contact between faculty and
undergraduate students.
We have hired Lecturers with Security of Employment and Potential Security of Employment whose
mission is to improve our undergraduate instruction. They provide improved continuity of effort over
temporary lecturers and contribute significant teaching ability and experience to our classes. They
research and apply novel pedagogical techniques, and they share successful techniques with the faculty.
Students evaluate the instructor and TA(s) in every CS course using campus-standard ESCI surveys. The
results and the written comments are provided to the faculty. The Chair discusses any concerns with the
instructor. Teaching evaluations now are an integral part of the merit and promotion dossier. Overall
evaluation of our teaching of the lower and upper division level courses is similar to that for the College
and the campus (usually a little better than the College, a little worse than the campus).
17
Every year, graduating College of Engineering students vote for the Outstanding Faculty in Computer
Science Award. The College of Engineering students each year also vote for an outstanding Teaching
Assistant each quarter (3 per year). They select the best TA in a lower and upper division class. Our
department celebrates publicly all of these awardees, emphasizing the value we place on quality.
Our faculty has been recognized recently for their teaching contributions via University-wide and
external awards. Each year, UCSB awards an Academic Senate Distinguished Teaching Award and a
Distinguished Mentor Award. Since the 2003-4 academic year, four different CS faculty received the
former award and one CS faculty received the latter award. These awards are extremely competitive
given that faculty from all departments in all colleges are considered. One of our faculty members
received the 2007 Northrop Grumman Excellence in Teaching award; another received the CRA-W
Anita Borg Early Career Award for research, outreach, and mentoring.
h. How are teaching assistants trained, supervised, and evaluated?
Since the last PRP review, we instituted two changes intended to improve our TAs. First, our Graduate
Admissions Committee pays more attention to an applicant’s skills in English communication.
Secondly, we started a Lead TA program to improve the performance of our TAs.
The Lead TA (LTA) is selected based on the evaluations from students and instructors. The Lead TA
attends the Lead TA Institute workshops provided by UCSB's Office of Instructional Development. The
LTA then guides our TAs via a three-part training process that takes place throughout the year.
First, we added a graduate course, CMPSC 501: Techniques of Computer Science Teaching In this
course, the LTA provides information on an array of topics from leading course discussions and
interacting with students during office hours to familiarizing TAs with departmental and campus
resources and procedures. During this course, guest speakers address issues pertaining to interacting
with students. Second, every quarter, we use midquarter TA evaluations by our students to monitor the
progress of our TAs. These evaluations, in addition to the campus wide survey, help the LTA, the
instructor, and the TA detect early concerns (such as the pace of the Discussion Section).Third, we
videotape the TA's during one of their discussion sessions through the Teaching Assistant Development
Program. This program offers TAs a chance to see and hear how they actually appear to students and to
receive consultation from an experienced TA (often outside the department) and LTA.
The Lead TA and the Graduate Advisor also help problematic TAs. Moreover, each graduate student
undergoes an annual review by the whole CS faculty. During that review, TA reviews who receive poor
reviews are put on probation and receive extra attention.
To help motivate excellence, each quarter, we now recognize outstanding Teaching Assistants with a
Teaching Assistant Award in a public ceremony.We will continue to refine and improve our Lead TA
program.
i. What measures other than the improvement of teaching itself could help raise the quality of
instruction (e.g., classroom facilities, effective instructional equipment)?
Key measures that we have taken include (i) employing lab facilities as part of the instructional
experience and (ii) providing more TA support for additional student contact hours. For the former, our
18
lower division programming course discussion sections now occur in a physical hands-on lab. The use
of such lab facilities enables students to put into practice what they are learning in a controlled setting
with instructors and TAs. Such a setting also enables us to apply new pedagogical tools such as "pair
programming" to the learning process.
To fully master the programming, our students need to work in both "open lab" settings—such as CSIL,
where they can come on their own time on a "drop-in" basis to use the facility, as well as "closed lab"
settings—structured offerings connected to a specific course, such as those that have been recently
introduced to facilitate new pedagogical tools.
However, this increased utilization of the Cooper Lab facility, a facility shared by the entire College of
Engineering, has raised some concerns. Additional space for closed labs may be needed to support the
new more "hands-on" pedagogy.
j. What paths are taken by students after they graduate from the major, e.g., job placement rates,
graduate and professional school admission rates? How does the department track its graduates?
Our majors are heavily recruited by companies over a wide range of industries. The department
maintains a list of employment opportunities. A mailing list announces such openings. The university
has an excellent Counseling and Career Services Center, which coordinates between our undergraduates
and company recruiters.
Most of our students go directly to industry after graduation. Only a small fraction go to graduate
school. Our focus on increasing undergraduate research is expected to increase that fraction.
The most recent campus survey of UCSB alumni (Fall 2007) offers the following comments on
Computer Science majors:
"Undergraduate alumni who studied computer science ($65,000), engineering ($56,000), business
economics ($53,400), or mathematics ($46,700) are now earning the highest salaries among fulltime employees surveyed."
"Computer science alumni stand out as having received more than adequate job preparation at UCSB
– all 100% of the computer science students responding say they were prepared "very well" or
"more than adequately" for their present occupations."
"Satisfaction with internships is more common among graduates of the following disciplines:
environmental studies (64%), computer science (63%), biological sciences (48%), and
engineering (47%)."
"Alumni from the following undergraduate disciplines give the highest ratings to UCSB’s graduate
school preparation: computer science, engineering, environmental studies, and foreign language
& literature."
"Alumni from the following undergraduate disciplines are the most likely to say “yes,” they would
attend UCSB if they had it to do over again: environmental studies (100%), computer science
(100%), mathematics (100%), and communications (98%). Nearly all of these students would
also recommend UCSB to a friend, as well as 100% of biological/life science alumni."
13% were enrolled full-time in graduate study.
The survey report for the 2004 graduates makes remarkably similar comments about computer science
students. Response rates are small: It is difficult to draw general conclusions from these surveys.
19
K . How would the department characterize the results of the undergraduate student survey? Does it
believe they are generally representative of the experience of undergraduate majors in the
department?
The numerical scores and the written feedback from the surveys suggest a healthy environment for our
undergraduates. Furthermore, we have made steady improvements in most of the areas since our last
PRP survey. Since that survey was conducted, our curricular improvements and the hiring of Phill
Conrad and Diana Franklin, we believe, will resolve most of the key criticisms discussed below. The
student feedback can be broadly divided into these categories.
Curriculum issues: Students liked the offering of upper-division electives. They questioned the length
of the premajor sequence, some specific courses in the curriculum, and their relationship to each
other and other courses. Our new lower division curriculum addresses most of these concerns.
We have a plan for evaluating the impact of this curriculum.
BA program: The students thought the BA program was not well coordinated. This also is reflected in
the program’s attrition rate. We are conducting a number of surveys to understand students' need
for such interdisciplinary programs, and are redesigning a more flexible version.
Advising: Students wanted better guidance and help. The recruitment of Phill Conrad as our faculty
advisor has helped immensely in this regard. We have a pilot program for individual advising.
Instruction: With regard to instruction by TAs, the lead TA program has helped and we plan to
continue it. Some of the lab sections have moved to the Cooper lab (with desktop machines)
which boosts hands-on experience in our lower division courses.
Intellectual climate: Students remarked about the broad intellectual climate of the undergraduate
programs. In this regard, we have introduced the distinction in major (DIMAP) program and
introduced a research methods course in which students hear faculty presentations on research.
l. Comment on the department's general education offerings with respect to frequency, enrollments in
the past five years, and the level of appointments teaching those courses.
During the past six years, we have had one general education course. It had been CMPSC 5JA:
Introduction to Programming (Java). With our recent curriculum revamped, it has become CMPSC 8:
Introduction to Computer Science. The department offered its general education course every Fall,
Winter, and Spring quarter since the last PRP review; it also offered its general education course in four
of the last five summer sessions. Using enrollment from Fall of 2005 until Spring of 2010, we computed
average enrollments. In Fall quarters, it has been 136 students; in Winter quarter, 79 students, in Spring,
89 students; in summer, 33 students. Overall, average enrollment has been 87 students.
Generally, we use Lecturers to teach these courses. Until recently, these were "temporary" Lecturers.
Recently, the Department hired two Lecturers, one, whose appointment is wholly in the College of
Engineering (COE), has Security of Employment; the other, whose appointment is evenly divided
between the COE and the College of Creative Studies, has Potential Security of Employment. These
individuals, while permanent members of our faculty, focus both their teaching and research on
undergraduate computer science education. This year, we also had a Professor teach CMPSC 8 who will
do so again next year.
m. If the department's programs are subject to accreditation, comment on any recent reviews and
their conclusions regarding quality of instruction.
20
The department underwent an ABET re-accreditation in the academic year 2008-2009. They found that
"The Computer Science Department at the University of California, Santa Barbara is a nationally
recognized, dynamic program." They found the following program strengths:
"The department's primary strength is found in its people. Its faculty members are recognized both
within the institution and nationally for their contributions to the discipline."
"Students spoke highly of the faculty's engagement with the undergraduates. The classroom
environment and interaction, as well as the ability to actively participate in faculty research
projects, afford students strong academic credentials and a firm understanding of the discipline
and their future career options."
They concluded that "There are no deficiencies, weaknesses, or concerns for this program."
n. How does the department provide access by students to its course syllabi?
The UCSB General Catalog is accessible via the Campus web site. We have a link, named UCSB
General Catalog, to this page in our departmental web site. The UCSB General Catalog web page for the
Computer Science Department has a table of contents which includes a link named Computer Science
Courses, which is a page of catalog course descriptions for our courses.
21