An Educational Journey: Conflict Management in An Academic Environment


“The barriers to education for people, real and perceived, are costing the world some great minds, or at least the opportunity for them to be used optimally where they best fit.”---A Purdue undergraduate major reacting to the barriers between CS and Engineering at Purdue.

Latest Update: Thursday March 22, 2012
Maintained by: Aditya Mathur, Professor, Department of Computer Science, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA

Purpose of this site

(a) Keep a public record of the sequence of events that have occured in response to a proposal [aka: The Realignment Proposal] to the University administration to move the Department of Computer Science to the College of Engineering.

(b) Serve as a case study for university administrators and for those who study conflict resolution.

Documents related to the Realignment Issue

(a) Time to Move CS to Engineering [pdf]
(b) Alternate models for realignment [pdf]
(c) Staggering overlap between Computer Science and Computer Engineering at Purdue[pdf]

(d) Copy of the letter sent to President Cordova rerading CS and CompE course overlap.
(d) Financial Savings and increased revenue
(e) Resistance to realignment
(f) Memo from Dean Roberts regarding realignment
(g) Memo from Provost Sands regarding realignment
(h) Copy of letter to President Cordova requesting a delay in the head search process.

A Problem

Given the following constraints and facts, what is the right approach to move the Department of Computer Science at Purdue University from the College of Science to the College of Engineering?

Constraints [as of February 17, 2010]:

  1. Interim Head of Computer Science has indicated that he is not interested in dealing with this issue.
  2. Head of the School of Electrical and Computer Engineering seems to not want CS to move to the College of Enginering as an independent School of Computer Science.
  3. The Provost has clearly stated that the proper channel for dealing with such issues is the deans and the department/school heads of the respective colleges.
  4. The Deans have not informed the faculty of any process to deal with the issue. The former Interim Dean of the College of Science, Jon Harbor, had outlined a process that was abandoned by the new Dean.
  5. CS faculty is split on this issue; the exact split is not known as no vote has ever been taken on this issue. However, the five full professors who are against CS moving to the College of Engineering have successfully convinced several junior faculty members that such a move is not in their best interest.

Facts [Partial list]:

  1. There is an appaling amount of overlap between the Computer Science and Computer Engineering programs. The overlap is among undergrdauate and graduate courses and among research areas.
  2. Students who wish to enroll in Computer Science as a major are perplexed when they find that this major is not offered to majors in the College of Engineering. Hence, some of them end up in Computer Engineering while others reluctantly enroil in Computer Science, and still others do not care about the college.
  3. Students in the College of Engineering are denied an opportunity to major in Computer Science while remaining in the same college.
  4. While nearly all Computer Science graduates work in engineering environments where they design, develop, test, and maintain hardware/software systems, they are being educated in an enviroment that is seriously lacking in the "engineering flavor."
  5. Purdue is known internationally for its Engineering programs and hence most students who wish to pursue a computing degree, and have done well in high school, wish to enroll in a major in the College of Engineering, and not in the College of Science. This unfortunate fact leads to Computer Science losing many bright students who might have joined Computer Science had this major was offered in the College of Engineering.
  6. A case has been made, in a formal document, regarding why moving the Department of Computer Science is necessary and how it will benefit the students, faculty, and hence Purdue.
  7. Faculty of Computer Science has discussed the issue in several open favculty meetings. This faculty has also participated in a survey whose report was submiotted to the Deans of Engineering and Science.
  8. The issue has been discussed openly with a large number of Purdue alumni, representatives of corporations, and with currently enrolled students. In nearly all cases the response has been in favor of moving Computer Science to the College of Engineering.

  • Event Log


    Date Event
    Friday July 25, 2008
    [Request to Dean Jamieson]

    Aditya asks Dean Jamieson for a meeting to discuss a proposal. Dean Jamieson responds quickly indicating that she is willing to meet and asks her assistant Jackie Baumgardt to arrange a meeting.
    Monday September 8, 2008
    [Meeting with Dean Jamieson]


    Aditya meets with Dean Jamieson and discusses a proposal to move CS to the College of Engineering. Dean Jamieson very postiive about the proposal but indicates that she will not be proactive.
    September 19, 2008
    [Proposal to CS faculty]
    Aditya presents to CS faculty a draft proposal for moving CS to the college of engineering. Faculty discuss the proposal.

    Sunday September 21, 2008
    [ Dean Jamieson's positive response]


    Dean Jamieson sends email to Aditya informing him that she had talked to several department heads in engineering and that their reaction was quite positive to CS moving to engineering.
    Monday October 3, 2008
    [Second presentation to CS faculty]


    Aditya makes second presentation to the faculty regarding a proposal to move CS to engineering. Discussion ensues.
    Wednesday October 6, 2008
    [CS full profs polled]
    Aditya sends an email to all full professors asking whether or not they would support a proposal to move CS to engineering. Response: Support: 14 full professors including one professor emeritus and member of the National Academy of Engineering, Head and Associate Head; Do Not support: 5 full professors; Undecided: 1.
    Wednesday October 13, 2008
    [Request to Provost Woodson]

    Aditya sends an email to Provost Woodson asking for a meeting regarding the proposal to move CS to engineering.
    Wednesday October 13, 2008
    [Provost Woodson meeting set up]
    Provost Woodson responds and asks his assistant to set up a meeting.
    Wednesday October 22, 2008
    [Support from ECE faculty]

    A senior professor in ECE writes to Aditya "I am all in favor of CS moving into engineering. " A bit later another faculty member from ECE visited Aditya and told him "This is the right thing to do."
    Thursday October 23, 2008
    [Meeting with Provost Woodson]
    Aditya meets with Provost Randy Woodson .A positive meeting. However, some CS faculty had probably already met with the Provost. He asked me if the move would lead to some CS faculty leaving Purdue. Aditya mentioned to him that one of the professors who is opposed to the move to engineering has already interviewed before the proposal to move was brought to the faculty. THis individual had beeing trying to leave Purdue, unsuccessfully, regardless of the realignment of CS.
    Thursday January 8, 2009
    [Dean Harbor sets up Fact Finding Committee]

    Interim Dean Jon Harbor sends a memo to CS faculty annlouncing the creation of a Fact Finding Committee that will prepare a report by the end of Spring 2009 . The committee was expelicitely asked not to make any recommendations.
    Monday February 16, 2009
    [White paper "Time to Move to Engineering" made public]
    A white paper titled "The Case for a School of Computer Science and Engineering at Purdue" is made available to faculty. This white paper went through several revisions thanks to Professors Mike Atallah (Associate Hed) and Ahmed Sameh (former head of CS) and , Dr. Tim Kor (Assistant Head). Input from faculty received during discussions was also instrumental in early revisions. The white paper is avaialble to faculty and also to the public at large. [Click here to obtain a copy of the white paper.]
    Wednesday April 1, 2009 Fact Finding committe submits its report to Interm Dean Jon Harbor. The committee was set up by Interim Dean Jon Harbor and consisted of Professors Walid Aref, Susanne Hambrusch, Suresh Jagannathan, Cristina Nita-Rotaru, Ahmed sameh (Chair). Professor Ernee Agee from the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences served as an external member of the committee.
    Friday April 3, 2009 Interim Dean Harbor sends an email to Aditya asking him "...I have heard that on Monday you plan to present to the corporate partners a proposal to move the department to the College of Engineering. This is premature - please do not do it. ..."

    Question that has so far remained unanswered: Who asked Interim Dean Harbor to ask Aditya not to present the issue to the Corporate Partners?

    Aditya's note: Censorship exists in US universities.

    Monday April 6, 2009 Respecting Interim Dean Horbor's request Aditya presents an updated version of his slides to the Corporate Partners. The slides were changed in response to Interim Dean Harbor's request not to talk about the issue of moving CS to engineering.
    Wednesday April 8, 2009 14 Full Professors from CS sign a letter in support of moving the Department of Computer Science to the College of Engineering. The letter was forwarded to Provost Randy Woodson by the Department Head Aditya Mathur and Associate Head Mikhail Atallah. These 14 individuals included all distinguished professors, all university scholars and one member of the National Academy of Engineering within the Department of Computer Science. Five Full Professors did not support the move. Associate and Asistant professors were not polled.
    Thursday April 9, 2009 Aditya sends the following message to Interim Dean Harbor:

    "Dear Jon,

    (a) The Corporate Partners meeting went off very well. The members appreciated our initiatives related to the undergraduate education.

    (b) You successfully prevented me from talking to the partners regarding the move. However, at least one member of our faculty had already talked to at least one partner, and another faculty member talked to the same partner when the partner was in town. I know this because this partner-- who was given a 90 minute dose of criticism of the move to CoE-- confided in me following the meeting.

    (c) Several faculty--especially junior--have asked me for a copy of my white paper. Now that the survey and the corporate meeting are behind us, would you object if I share the white paper with the faculty?

    (d) [Deleted. This item does not concern the realignment issue.]

    (e) A group of 14 senior professors have sent to the Provost a letter--through Mike and I--in support of moving CS to CoE. I had mentioned this possibility to you earlier.

    (f) [Deleted. This item does not concern the realignment issue.]

    Best regards.

    Friday April 24, 2009 Interim Dean Jon Harbor visits the CS department faculty meeting and lays out a clear sequence of steps before the Provost would make a final decision on the realignment proposal.
    Thursday May 7, 2009 Raymond DeCarlo Professor of ECE and former Chair of Purdue Faculty Senate, writes to Provost Woodson lending his support to the proposal to move CS to the College of Engineering.
    Tuesday May 12, 2009 In response to a request from Interim Dean Harbor, Aditya sends an email to all CS faculty asking them identify any factual information might have mae into the report of the Fact Finding Committee.
    Thursday May 14, 2009

    (a) A member of CS faculty, opposed to the idea of CS moving to Engineering, suggests a serious examination of te benefits of having an independent collage of computing and informatics that would rool up CS, CompE, CIT, CGT, and and various cebters under one dean.

    (b) Aditya asks this faculty member if he/she was willing to draft a proposal for such a college.

    (c) In response to Adity'as question the response from this faculty member "I would certainly be willing to lead a group on this, but I don't have the bandwidth to do it myself." Subsequntly Aditya suggested that perhaps a team can work on such a proposal. Response: "I am willing to work on this, but I have only so many things I can do at once. And there are people who have no interest in pursuing moving CS into engineering, so whether there is current interest in an alternative over in engineering isn't really an issue."

    Friday May 29, 2009 In an email to Aditya Dean Jamieson rejects the idea of a School of Computer Science and Engineering and points to the possibility of a School of Computer Science with homes in both Engineering and Science.
    Monday June 1, 2009 Aditya has a lunch meeting with Bernie Engel, Head Agriciluture and Biological Engineering (ABE) to understand their operation. ABE is located in Colleges of Engineering and Agriculture.
    Wednesday June 10, 2009 Avi Kak, Professor of ECE, writes to Provost Woodson in support of a proposal to move CS to engineering while expressing concerns related to the impact of such a move on Computer Engineering.
    Wednesday June 24, 2009
    [Visit to U of Michigan]

    Atallah, Korb, and Aditya drive to Ann Arbor to met with the Department Head Farnam Jahanian,Dean Munson and faculty in Computer Science and Engineering.
    Thursday June 25, 2009
    [Summary of visit to U of Michigan]
    Atallah, Korb, and Aditya met with Farnam, a few members of the CSE faculty and Dean Munson. All people consulted met during this visit, including Dean Munson, were clear in their thoughts that (a) CoE provides the right environment for CS to grow and (b) CS and ECE should be separate departments (or schools).
    Wednesday July 8, 2009
    [Summary of visit to U of Michigan to Dean Jamieson]
    Aditya sends an email to Dean Jamieson summarizing the discussion that Atallah, Korb, and he had at the University of Michigan with faculty and Dean Munson. Aditya also wrote "Here at Purdue we do plan to continue offering BS in CS to CoS majors while hoping to start a BS in in CS for CoE majors; this is the model that Michigan and several other schools use."

    Monday August 31, 2009
    [Dean Roberts sends memo to CS faculty]

    Dean Roberts sends a memo to all CS faculty and staff. The memo lists three steps:

    1. Create a compelling vision for the department through a consultative planning process.
    2. Consider the administrative actions that would need to accompany any realignment.
    3. Design an undergraduate major for students in the College of Engineering.

    Sunday, September 20, 2009
    [More faculty support for realignment]]
    Distinguished Professor Doraiswamy Ramakrishnan, member National Academy of Engineering, writes a letter to Aditya supporting the move to engineering.
    Monday October 5, 2009
    [Dean Jamieson's change of mind]
    In an email to Aditya Dean Jamieson moves away from the idea of offering a CS degree to students in the College of Engineering until the issue of the move is settled.The concern expressed is the impact of a CS degree on the Computer Engineering program. She also indicates that Dean Roberts and she will appoint a task force to start work on understanding the full set of issues.
    Friday October 16, 2009
    [Purdue alumni support realignment]
    After a meeting with Aditya, two Purdue alumni, write to Aditya in support of the proposal to move CS to engineering while also keeping it in Science. Some time ago these alums had opposed the idea in a letter to Interm Dean Jon Harbor.
    Wednesday November 4, 2009
    [CS realignment task force created]
    Deans Jamieson and Roberts send mail to 19 people--including faculty and staff--across the colleges of science and engineering asking them to join the CS Realignment Task Force. They wrote: "As you are probably aware, we are considering a proposal that would result in the administrative realignment of the Department of Computer Science (CS) from the College of Science to the College of Engineering. We write to ask you to serve on the CS Realignment Task Force to assist us in this endeavor.

    The charge of the task force will be to identify the key administrative issues that would need to be addressed as part of a realignment of CS from Science to Engineering. The task force will not be asked to evaluate the merits of realignment, nor will it be charged with proposing solutions to the identified issues. Our aim is for a decision regarding realignment to be made by the end of the current academic year. Thus, this task force would need to complete its work in a relatively short period, with a final report due by mid- February. Thank you for considering." No chair was named. Note: At the time of writing this blog there has been only one meeting of the task force. No report has come out at the time of this update!
    Wednesday December 16, 2009
    [CS realignment task force meets (first and last meeting with no report)]
    CS Realignment task force meets under the chairmanship of George McCabe, Associate Eean of Science.
    Thursday February 11, 2010
    [Tim sands appointed as the new provost]
    Purdue Board of Trustees ratify the apointment of Professor Tim Sands as the new Provost of Purdue University.Tim Sands will fill the post of the provost May 2010 when Provost Randy Woodson leaves Purdue for North Carolina State University as its President.
    June 27, 2010 Aditya releases a document titled "Alternate models for the realignment of the Department of Computer Science." This document was prepared in response to request from some members of the faculty.
    Monday July 12, 2010
    [Aditya meets with Provost Sands]
    Aditya meets with Provost Sands and gives him a collection of all the documents related to the realignment issue. Provost sands listened intently and mentioned a few things. (a) That Purdue has in a short time merged several departments and created a new college; moving CS is a much easier task. (b) he had not discussed the issue in any depth but will do so. We also disussed various administrative models for CS if it were to move to the College of Engineering. This was a very nice meeting and Aditya came out with the impression that Provost Sands will give a serious consideration to the realignment issue.
    Wednesday August 18, 2011 Accepting an invitation from Aditya, Bernie Engel, Head School of Agricultutal and Biological Engineering, visits the CS Faculty during their annual retreat. Bernie is questioned by several faculty members about the benefits of being in Engineering. In summary, his response was clear that the School of Agricultutal and Biological Engineering has benefited a lot from being a part of the College of Engineering.
    Wednesday September 1, 2010
    [Dean Roberts' angry response to Aditya]
    Aditya meets with Dean Roberts. Aditya asks why the realignment issue is not on the agenda for the external review committee. Dean Roberts says that it is his committee and he decides what should be the charge to the external review committee. Aditya retorts that though it is the Dean's committee and review it is also a faculty review. We reach nowhere. Dean Roberts was very angry. He told Aditya, with red face and looking down on him, that if he were to make a recommendation today then it would not be one Aditya likes. Obviously he meant that he would recommend that CS stay in the College of Science. Again, Aditya did not loose my cool. However, upon return to his office Aditya drafted a resignation letter. This was the result of the Dean's angry behavior and his insistece that the External Review committee will not be asked to comment on the realignment issue. Aditya felt that by doing so the department will be denied an excellent opportunity to get external feedback on a key issue that has divided the department.
    Tuesday September 7, 2010
    [Aditya holds on to his resignation letter]
    Aditya is advised to meet with Provost Sands before turning in the letter of resignation. Aditya agreed and sent an email to the Assistant to Provost Sands requesting an apppintment.
    Wednesday September 8, 2010
    [Provost sand's assistant denies Aditya ameeting with the Provost]
    Later in the afternoon Aditya received a call from the Provost's office and was asked why he needed the appointment. Aditya explained the conflict brewing between Dean Roberts, the department and head (Aditya). And that Aditya does not wish for the external review committee to know of this conflict as it may tarnish the image of Purdue and the College of Science. Aditya followed up with an email to the Provost's office as reproduced below (some names removed).


    I have no problem if Tim wants to first talk to the Dean and then talk to me if needed. The Dean refused to honor my request and that is why I want to talk  to the Provost.

    I must mention that if the issue is not resolved before the external review, then there is a reasonable chance that the review will be a chaos and that would not look good for Purdue. Either the Dean or the Provost needs to resolve the interest is in making sure that Purdue’s image is not tarnished even slightly.


    The offrice of the Dean of Science then called Aditya's Assistnt asking why Aditya wishes to meet with the Provost. Aditya then sent the following message at 3:46pm to the office of the Dean of Science:


    Dean Roberts does not wish the External Review committee to discuss the realignment proposal for CS to move to the College of Engineering. Regardless of what the Dean wants, many faculty members WILL bring this issue up during their meetings with the committee and in a very serious way. This will likely escalate to a situation that may lead to Purdue’s image being tarnished. I do not wish for this to happen.

    As I could not get Dean Roberts to agree to my request for the committee to give their input on the realignment issue, I am seeking another route to get the issue resolved. In the end, if I fail to get this issue resolved to the satisfaction of our faculty, things might get out of control."

    A little later Aditya received the following from the office of the Dean of Science:

    Thanks for the additional information.   I understand your concerns and that this is a big issue for the CS department, but I also know that Jeff and Dr. Sands have discussed the goals for this visit prior to the finalization of the committee’s charge.  I think that it would be best if we get you and Jeff reconnected first so that he can review with you conversations that have already taken place on this topic and together you can decide if it would be appropriate to revisit the issue with the Provost.  He returns from travel tomorrow – can I have him give you a call?

    Aditya's response at 8:38pm:

    "Dear ---,

    Please ignore my previous email that I sent in a hurry .
    > but I also know that Jeff and Dr. Sands have discussed the goals for this visit prior to the finalization of >the committee’s >charge.

    Indeed, I am aware of this.

    > I think that it would be best if we get you and Jeff reconnected first so that he can review with you >conversations that >have already taken place on this topic and together you can decide if it would be
    >appropriate to revisit the issue with the Provost.  He returns from travel tomorrow – can I have him >give you a call?
    I have already talked to Dean Roberts about this and we disagree on certain issues.  I now wish to take my case to the Provost.  However, if Dean Roberts wishes to speak with me, then  as a courtesy to him I will surely take his call.


    Thursday September 9, 2010
    [CS dept head Mathur resigns]

    (a) Aditya received the following from the Office of the Dean of Science.

    Is there any chance that you would be available today between 1-2 to sit down and talk with Jeff and George on this external review issue further?

    Aditya's response:

    ">Is there any chance that you would be available today between 1-2 to sit down and talk with Jeff and George on this external >review issue further?
    OK, I will come over at 1pm today.


    (b) Around Noon Aditya asked Nicole to inform the office of the Dean of Science that Tim Korb, Assistant Department Head, will also accompany him to this meeting.

    (c) Aditya and Tim Korb attend a meeting with Dean Roberts and Gorge McCabe. Dean Roberts was in hte most angry mood Aditya had ever seen him.

    (d) Department Head Aditya Mathur resigns citing serious unresolved differences with Dean Jeffrey Roberts. Click here to see Aditya's resignation letter.

    Aditya did not make public the actual reason that precipitated his resignation. The resignation letter only points to the key issue that led to an unfortunate situation that forced Mathur to resign. Anyone who wishes to know what exactly precipitated the resignation is requested to contact Aditya Mathur.

    Friday September 10, 2010
    [Mathur's resignatin accepted]
    Dean Roberts accepts Aditya's resignation and announces that Associate Dean George McCabe, Professor of Statistics, will serve as the temporary head.
    Sunday September 12, 2010

    Aditya receives the following request from The Purdue Exponent:


    My name is Ashley and I am an assistant campus editor for The Exponent. I
    am not sure if you remember, but we spoke last semester about the Computer
    Science curriculum. My reason for contacting you now is that we received
    information about your resignation on Friday and I was wondering if you
    would be able to speak with me regarding your choice to step down. Please
    let me know if it is at all possible to get your side of the story and for
    you to explain why you felt it was necessary to do so. Let me know when
    the best possible time I can speak with you. I will be free tomorrow after
    12:30 p.m. if that works for you. Thank you for your time and I look
    forward to speaking with you.

    Thank you,

    Monday September 13, 2010
    [Exponent reports Mathur's resignation]

    (a) The Purdue Exponent reports on Mathur's resignation. Click here to read the Exponent article.

    (b) From Joe Camp
    Secretary of Faculties

    "The article in The Exponent today about the CS department caught my attention because it is an example of the type of organizational change that is supposed to involve one of the faculty committees prior to final approval. I’m not sure that this has occurred and I suspect that most of the people included in this message may not be aware of this step in the process.

    The pertinent committee is the Academic Organization Committee and it reports to the Educational Policy Committee (EPC). When appropriate, the EPC can consider and/or refer the matter to the entire Senate for discussion. Below is the link to the list of committees that report to the EPC and the Academic Organization Committee and its charge are described on the associated web page:

    The committee name is also linked to the membership list for the committee and I have included the members in this message. Provost Woodson utilized the input of this committee as part of the process of creating the new college of Health and Human Sciences. Professor Hullinger served as the committee’s liaison during those discussions. I believe it is imperative that this committee consider the proposed change for the CS department and any other departments on campus before any final decisions are made.

    If you have any questions, I will be happy to answer them."

    Tuesday September 14, 2010
    [Aditya's public display of the resignation letter questioned by administration]

    Aditya receives the following message from one of the CS department's facilities staff member regarding the public availability of my resignation letter.

    "I have received an email from XXXX questioning the public
    availability of and
    suggesting I remove it."

    Wednesday September 15, 2010 Dean Roberts asks all staff and faculty of Computer Science to meet with Provost Sands, Dean Leah Jamieson, and himself on Friday September 17, 2010 at 2pm.
    Friday September 17, 2010
    [Sands, Jamieson, and Roberts meet with CS faculty]]
    Provost Sands, Dean Jamieson, and Dean Roberts come to a joint faculty/staff meeting. Dean Roberts addresses the audience. (a) Mathur has resigned and all have access to his letter. (b) An interim head will soon be appointed. (c) An open search for a department head will soon be initiated despite tight university budget. (d) An external consultant will be hired to help change the curent climate of the department. (e) In consultation with Professor Anit Jones, chair of the external review committee, the external review has been postponed until sometime before the end of this academic year (2010-11). (f) The issue of realignment will be discussed only after the climate is appropriate and the faculty has had a chance to come up with a unified vision for the department.

    Dean Roberts had total support of Provost Sands and Dean Jamieson.There were a few questions from faculty but these were answered curtly. Dean Roberts successfully transformed a purely academic issue into a political one; and this despite two years of discussions among the faculty and with the administration.

    During Q&A session Professor Ahmed Sameh asked why the administration has not takn any decision on the realignment proposal despite the report of the Fact Finding committee. Dean Jamieson responded by saying that the report did not adress several important issues. To this Professor Sameh asked why have we not been told what those issues are. There was complete silencein the room for about 15 seconds.

    Provost Sands said that he has not had time to examine the issue in depth but he knows that there are multiple views on this issue. Dean Jamieson indicated her opposition to having a department in Engineering that has faculty that does not agree on important issues. She also disagreed with the view that realignment is the primary issue that has caused friction among CS faculty. [Note from Aditya: Friction among CS faculty has existed ever since I joined the department in 1987. I wonder if there is any CS department of this size that is free of friction among faculty.]

    This was a very sad day for Purdue.

    Friday September 17, 2010 Aditya receives a response to his query whether or not there is a Purdue policy against placing resignation letters online. Here is the response:

    "Hi Aditya - I'm not aware of any Purdue policy you would be violating by posting that on your CS homepage. I can ask one of the IT policy experts in ITaP if you'd like. Let me know ..."

    "Aditya – I’ve spoken with someone in ITaP regarding IT policy, and their opinion suggests there is no IT policy reason suggesting you can’t post your resignation letter on your CS homepage. We cannot speak to any HR policies that may exist. Thanks,"

    Friday September 17, 2010
    [Exponent contacts Aditya]
    Ashley Mikutis, Assistant Campus Editor, The Purdue Exponent, responds:

    "Hi Professor Mathur,

    I am currently trying to get in touch with everyone regarding what
    happened at the meeting and what were the results. I did have one question
    and I do not know if you can tell me but what was the condition that would
    be impossible to fill? Were there any guidelines that were set regarding
    the issue of the College of Engineering and Computer Science?

    Thanks agian!

    Tuesday September 28, 2010
    [Exponent responds to Aditya]
    Ashley Mikutis, Assistant Campus Editor, The Purdue Exponent, responds:

    "Sorry about replying so late, it has been a busy time for us. We are
    working on an article regarding the issue, it is simply a matter of
    response and time that is keeping it. I cannot specify an exact time yet
    but we are working on yet. Thank you for all you the help you have given


    Wednesday, October 6, 2010
    [Aditya asks Provost Sands to set up an independent commmitte to examine the realignment issue]
    Aditya sends a letter to Provost Sands urging him to set up a committee consisting of people from outside Purdue to make an independent assessment of the issue of realignment. Aditya also requests that this committee consist of people from top CS departments in the country and that its deliberations be completely transparent.
    Wednesday October 6, 2010
    [CS alumni support for realignment]
    Email from a Purdue alum (information that might identify the alum is replaced with xxxx):

    "I'm a former student of yours, xxxx. I was in your xxxx class in xxxxx. I'm e-maling you because I saw a recent news story that my former classmates sent me saying that you resigned from department head because they wouldn't merge the CS department into the School of Engineering. I read through the realignment timeline you posted on your site and I can't agree more with your decision to resign, it sounds like a big mess. I personally always felt that making CS a part of the School of Engineering really would be beneficial due to the way that engineering and CS work together, and would further growth not only in CS but pretty much all areas of Engineering as well. It's a shame Dean Roberts really put a stop to it - he doesn't know what everyone's missing out on by not combining them.

    I'm also e-mailing to let you know that your class ended up really helping me out in my job in a way I didn't entirely expect right off the bat - while I'm not in a specific software testing position, I'm working at a financial software company (xxxx) for over 3 years now and was recently promoted to a higher-paying position in the company's support organization; the software testing skills I learned from your class have helped me not only troubleshoot customer issues but help out the developers with reproducing bugs for them to fix, which contributed to my promotion.

    In any case, thanks for being an awesome professor, I still talk about your class to this day, and hope to really dive into the software testing world eventually.

    Have a good one,


    Thursday October 14, 2010
    [Exponent again responds to Aditya]
    Ashley Mikutis, Assistant Campus Editor, The Purdue Exponent, responds:


    It is no problem honestly I have been getting antsy about getting an
    article out as well. We have submitted our public information request and
    are waiting for the information to be sent to us. That is really what is
    holding this up right now. We are independent from the University so our
    content is not affected by that, it is simply a matter of getting the
    right information and waiting for it to be given. Sorry it has been so
    long we are trying.


    Wednesday November 10, 2010
    [Exponent waiting for response from Purdue to public information request]
    Ashley, editor of The Exponent responds:


    We are still waiting for our public information requests to be given to us
    and although we are constantly checking I do not know when that would be.
    I am sorry this has been taking so long.

    As we continue waiting and looking into the issue, I don't think it would
    be particularly a bad thing to write a column on the matter, although that
    idea falls in the hands of the opinions editor and editorial board, I will
    copy them on this e-mail.

    There are also letters to the editor which students, faculty and alumni
    can write in about the subject and raise awareness on the issue.

    Again sorry about the timing inconvenience!

    Tuesday, November 23, 2010
    [Adity sends letter to the President]
    Given that no response has been received to Aditya's letter to the provost, he sends a letter to the President Córdova urging her to take action on the realignment issue.
    Monday, January 10, 2011

    1. Aditya receives an email from Nicole, Admin Assistant to Head, asking for a suitable time to meet with Sunil (the Interim Head), Professors XX and YY to discuss “CS degree in Engineering”. Aditya's response copied to Professors XX and YY:

    "Dear Sunil,

    I am not interested in discussing “CS degree in Engineering” with either
    XX or YY. Please go ahead without me.

    Good luck!


    This response because Aditya believes that both these individuals (XX and YY, names not reported here) are against move to engineering and hence having them on a committee to discuss any positive action athat may result in CS moving to Engineering, would be fruitless.

    2. Interim Head Sunil Prabhakar visits Aditya and asks him to serve on a committee that will prepare a proposal for offering a CS degree to students in Engineering. Aditya agrees to serve but only if the committee is balanced. Aditya offers three faculty names anyone of which could be included to balance the committee.

    Thursday January 20, 2011
    [Another request sent to The Exponent]
    Aditya sends the following message to the Editor, The Purdue Exponent:

    "Dear Editor,

    First, thanks for the Exponent Salary Guide. Great job! I also liked your
    article in the Jan 20 issue of the Exponent.

    Sometime in the early Fall 2010, one of your outstanding Assistant Campus
    Editors, Ashley Mikutis, had interviewed me regarding serious issues that
    relate to Purdue’s Computer Science and Computer Engineering programs.
    When the interview did not appear for several weeks/months, I checked with
    Ashley on several occasions who in her most response wrote

    “We are still waiting for our public information requests to be given to
    us and although we are constantly checking I do not know when that would be.
    I am sorry this has been taking so long.”

    However, the interview has not been published so far. This concerns me as
    the astonishing overlap between Computer Science and Computer Engineering
    programs continues to exist at Purdue. So many students wish that CS was
    in the College of Engineering and was collaborating intimately with
    Computer Engineering and other engineering schools. We could then offer a
    multitude of new opportunities to the students--e.g. Dual degrees between
    Mechanical and Computer Science, specialized program in Computational
    Robotics, new jointly offered courses between Civil and Computer Science
    in the area of software for transportation, etc. In addition to
    significant benefits to students (of both Engineering and Science) Purdue
    will be able to improve fiscal efficiency by either combining the Computer
    Engineering and Computer Science programs or increasing their
    collaboration in areas of curriculum and faculty hiring.

    I humbly request you to please publish the interview that was given to
    Ashley and allow students an opportunity to begin this issue in an open

    Thanks and best of luck in you role as the editor of an important

    Aditya Mathur
    Professor Computer Science"

    Friday January 21, 2011
    [Exponent responds to Aditya]
    Aditya receives the following message from the Editor of The Exponent (student newspaper):


    Thanks for the email I'll look into what happened to the interview it
    sounds like a very interesting article and I agree that this issue needs
    and open forum.

    Shaan Yadav-Ranjan
    Campus Editor
    The Purdue Exponent - Purdue University's Independent Daily Student Newspaper
    (765)-743-1111 ex. 253"

    Wednesday, January 26, 2011
    [Three fomer CS dept heads write to President Cordova]
    A letter signed by John Rice, Ahmed Sameh, and Aditya Mathur (three former department heads of CS) is sent to President Cordova, with a copy to the Provost. The letter contains a 15 page addendum laying out the apalling overlap betwen Computer Engineering and Computer Science programs at Purdue. The loetter and the addendum point to the academic and financial benefits that will accrue to Purdue by moving CS to Engneering and improvig the academic collaboration between the two programs.
    Monday January 31, 2011
    [Aditya sends a reminder to The Exponent]
    Aditya sends a reminder to Editor, The Purdue Exponent:


    Any progress on this issue?


    Monday February 7, 2011 (a) The Purdue University Board of Trustees approve the merger of the departments of Industrial Technology and Organizational Leadership and Supervision.

    "The merger is an outcome of the ongoing review of academic programs in the colleges and schools. It makes programmatic sense, first and foremost," said Timothy D. Sands, executive vice president for academic affairs and provost and the Basil S. Turner Professor of Engineering. "Second, it should save money in the long run. We are looking for win-win opportunities like this all over campus."

    (b) The Academic Oversight Committe (that reports to the Educational Policy Committee) is engaged in developing guidelines for academic reorganization. There is a distinct possibility that soon after these guidelines are in place, the Provost's office will consider the realignment of Computer Science.

    Wednesday February 16, 2011 The Provost responds in writing to the letter from Rice, Sameh, and Mathur. The letter essentially points out that the issue needs to be resolved through "proper channel," which includes the Department/School heads and the Deans. The letter puts the issue back to where it all started over two years ago! All this despite several discussions among faculty, with the Deans, with the Provost, and a faculty survey!
    Wednesday February 16, 2011 Aditya writes to Ashley Mikutis, Assistant Campus Editor, The Purdue Exponent: "Dear Ashley,

    I have written to the Exponent Editor who promised to look into why the
    interview was not published but has not yet responded.

    Any idea what "truly" the problem is? The realignment of Computer Science
    with Engineering is an issue that ought to be discussed by students and
    faculty on campus. The Exponent would do a great service to the students
    and faculty by bringing this out in the open.

    Several of my colleagues are now convinced that "someone from Purdue
    administration has put pressure on the Exponent for not printing my
    interview." Is this really true?



    Monday February 21, 2011
    [Aditya and Sameh meet with Provost Sands]
    Aditya and Ahmed Sameh met with Provost Sands. Professor Rice could not attend as he was out of town. This was a good meeting in which Provost Sands spoke with clarity and frankness. It was confirmed that the Dean of Science and the Head of ECE do not favor realignment. It is not clear when Purdue will decide on the realignment issue and what will be the resolution.
    Wednesday February 23, 2011 The interim department head has taken the liberty to revise the document that was prepared for the external review committee now scheduled to visit the department on March 6-8. Interestingly, the issue of realignment has been sidelined (or "diluted") by carefully adding more issues that are really non-issues and never discussed with the faculty. For example, the interim head has drummed up the idea of offering CS degree to students of Library Science! There has been no serious discussion on this issue and it is not even an issue but it appears in the revised document. The administration is using clever strategies to make sure that the external review committee does not recommend that CS should be in engineering. Students and Purdue have been sidelined and self serving concerns of a few are now at the forefront.
    Thursday February 24, 2011
    [Aditya requests Interim CS head for a meeting with the external review committee]
    Aditya sends the following request to the Interim Head, with a copy to the Chair of the committee, for a brief private meeting with the Externl Review Committee:

    "Dear Sunil,

    Would you consider arranging for me to briefly (15-20mts) meet with the External Review committee? It could be prior to or after the dinner on Sunday or any other time that can be squeezed in the tight schedule.

    Given that I was the department head for three out of the 5-year review period, I might be able share with the committee a view that others might not.



    Friday February 25, 2011
    [Aditya's request denied]

    The Dean, not the Interim Head, declined Aditya's request to meet with the External Review Committee.
    Tuesday March 8, 2011
    [Several CS alumni write to the Provost in support of the realignment]
    • A diverse group of CS alumni have begun to write to the Provost lending their support to the realignment proposal.
    • The 5-year external review was postponed due to Aditya's resignation. The review took place on March 7 and 8. However, Due primarily to the events that led to Adity'as resignation and others related to the realignment, Aditya could not get himself to be a part of this review.
    • Not surprisingly the Dean did not include the realignment issue in the charge given to the external review committee. However, the issue did come up during several meetingsof the committee with the faculty and students. The Dean has been adament in that realignment is not an issue to be discussed with the external review committee. Perhaps he believes that the doezen or so items listed on the charge he gave to the committee are all more important than realignment! Undoubtedly, history reprats itself. Resistance from Deans and several faculty was also faced several decades ago at Stanford and NC State when they tried to move their respective Computer Science programs to engineering. Of course, despite the resistance, they were successful.
    Tuesday April 12, 2011 Aditya sends a document to the Provost. The document is titled "Misleading Administration in the Midst of Truth: The Issue of Course Overlap." This document refers to a successful 1995 effort by ECE and CS faculty to mislead the university administration into beleiving that there is no overlap in the courses offered by Computer Engineering and Computer Science. From the statements made by two members of the CS faculty at a recent faculty meeting, it seems that yet another such effort might be in the works once again to convince the administration that there is no overlap between CompE and CS! It is quite straightforward to estimate the massive waste of taxpayer money and the denial of opportunities to the students of the State of Indiana as a conseqeunce of the 1995 effort by the faculty of CS and Computer Engineering. Let us hope that CS and Computer Engineering faculty will not be able to pull off this trick once again in 2011 or anytime in the future!
    Thursday May 5, 2011
    [External review committee proposes a much wider realignment]
    Rebirth of REALIGNMENT:

    The wait is over. The final report from the External Review committee has arrived and has been distributed by Dean Roberts to CS faculty. Following are the highlights related to the realignment proposal.

    1. "...the Committee recommends that the Provost lead a pan-university consideration of
      how computer science and information technology will be taught, will advance
      scholarship and will exploit the leverage to be had in interdisciplinary cooperation
      across the university. The result would be a shared vision across the university
      and a strategic plan to achieve that vision."

    2. "The Dean of the College of Science and the Provost should
      declare that consideration of the single issue of realignment of the Computer
      Science Department into the College of Engineering is closed. They should
      carefully communicate that while the realignment proposal does have some
      positive attributes, the process for consideration of this singleton realignment
      issue is no longer functional and is terminated. Computer Science should
      participate in the pan-university process of repositioning the university to best
      embrace and exploit computer science and information technology for education
      and research, should it commence."

      The above two recommendations seem to be very positive for Computer Science, and in general to computing, at Purdue. First, the committee has gone far beyond the realignment proposal. The recommendation above, and several other statements in the report, are a clear indication that the committee thinks that all elements of computing at Purdue, including CompE, CS, C&IT, and CG&T, ought to be included in a broad discussion that must lead to a strategic plan that focuses on bringing computing as a single university wide source for education and research.

      Let us hope that the President and the Provost take the committee recommendation with utmost seriousness and establish a university-wide committee to arrive at a strategic plan. What exactly will be the outcome of any such committee and the discussions that ensue, is unclear. But one outcome seems obvious: the face of CompE and CS at Purdue is destined to change for the better, and, in all likelihood CS will not remain a part of the College of Science.

      Alll faculty and students who supported the realignment proposal ought to be congratulated for communicating the need for realignment to the External Review committee. Dean Roberts had explicitly asked the committee NOT to look into the realignment issue. The committee did refer to this fact in their report. Nevertheless, many brave souls in CS went ahead and brought the issue to the forefront during the committee's visit. Also, following their visit the committee talked with Aditya. The committee finally recommended what many on CS faculty have been thinking for years: a single face of computing at Purdue!

      It is also interesting to note that all the issues that led to the realignment proposalin 2008 are mentioned in the report. For example, the question of the merger of ECE and CS, the divide between CompE and CS, the problems that student's face, course overlap, etc., are all in the report. It is exactly these issues that led the committee to recommend burying the realignment proposal in its current form and morph it into a new and much broader realignment across the university!Obviously, the realignment issue will remain very much alive though in a much stronger and broader form!

      A big Thank You to all members of the External Review committee and all CS faculty who have expressed their steadfast support to the realignment and their concern for the betterment of the future of our students and of Purdue!
    Friday May 13, 2011 Thanks to the persistence of CS faculty, students, alumni and the report of the External Review Committee, Purdue administration has finally taken a decision. The Provost will soon create a task force to make recommendations

    ".. for institutional changes and investments that will position Purdue to be among the global leaders in information and computing science, engineering and technology, encompassing the spectrum from fundamental understanding to societal impact. Among the opportunities that the task force will consider are: 1) enabling exploration and mobility of first-year undergraduate students who know that they
    would like to pursue an education centered around information and computing, but do not know
    which program at Purdue best suits their aspirations; 2) attracting more diverse, ambitious and
    highly qualified students to Purdue; 3) lowering barriers to collaboration among faculty members
    in information and computing science, engineering and technology; 4) enhancing flexibility in
    the associated graduate programs to allow students to assemble advisory committees with
    breadth and depth across the academic units; 5) positioning Purdue to take a leadership role in
    the coming avalanche of change that computing will bring to learning and discovery in every
    single discipline - from information retrieval and archiving to the humanities to social sciences to
    life and physical sciences; and 6) solidifying our strengths in computing and information science,
    engineering and technology
    to become the global leader in a few strategic specialties."

    The decision by the Provost seems to be a first step in the right direction. It takes the original "realignment" proposal to a new level by instead proposing to consider a suitable "realignment" all elements of information and computing science, engineering and technology at Purdue. The six items that the provost has enumerated are what the students and faculty supporting the realignment have asked for in private meetings and/or emails to the Provost. The specific outcome of the task force that the Provost plans to set up is unclear. However, we hope that it will be in the best interests of the students and Purdue.

    Monday August 15, 2011 In his May 13, 2011 memo to CS faculty and staff, Provost Sands indicated that he would set up a task force to make recommendations regarding institutional changes relating to various computing and information related programs at Purdue. Well, it is now past summer but there is no information to the CS faculty and staff regarding the task force. Hence the following request was sent to Provost Sands.

    Dear Provost Sands,


    In your memo dated May 13, 2011 to CS faculty and staff, you wrote:

    “This summer, I will charge a task force to make recommendations for institutional changes and
    investments that will position Purdue to be among...”

    Could you kindly inform the Computer Science faculty and staff whether or not the task force has been set up, and if so who are its members and the charge? The reason I ask is that summer is now past us, and the fall semester is upon us.

    Best regards.


    Tuesday August 16, 2011 The departmental head search committee has been announced by the Dean. The committee consists of five full professors from CS and one full professor from the Department of Chemistry. One wonders why someone from Chemistry would be needed to serve on the committee to search for the head of Computer Science! Would someone from Computer Engineering not be more appropriate?Or someone from Statistics? Or Mathematics? How does Chemistry come into picture? Does it have something to do with the Dean being a professor of Chemistry?

    Three of the five CS faculty members on the committee have been outspoken critics of the realignment and any move to the College of Engineering. Apparantly the committee chair, appointment by the Dean and not elected, also told the External Review committee that he is perfectly happy with the department remaining in the College of Science. Thus, one wonders how the committee members' views on realignment will affect the final recommendations of the search committee.

    One member of the search committee is known to go his way if the committee's decision is not agreeable to him. Several years ago, whlie serving on an important committee, he disagreed with the majority decision and wrote his own repor, with another member of that committee, while the committee chair wrote the majority report.

    Given that the university has not taken any final decision on the realignment issue, and that this issue has created a tense atmosphere among departmental faculty, one wonders whether this is the right time to invite candidates from outside for an interview!

    Wednesday September 14, 2011 Aditya sent a letter to President Cordova requesting that the CS head search be postponed until after the Provost has set up the task force he promised to CS faculty and staff and after the task force has announced its recommendations. Two main reasons for the request are (a) the new head must fit the reorganization that will be proposed by the task force and (b) the environment in the department is currently inappropriate to invite candidates for an interview.

    Note that the Provost's memo dated May 13, 2011 mentions the task force to be created during summer 2011.

    Eight full professors had signed an early draft of the letter though Aditya finally decided to send the letter with only his signature.

    Friday October 7, 2011 Provost Sands kindly responded to Aditya's letter of August 15 where he mentioned that "We are close, and I would expect an announcement within two weeks." Let us hope that an unbiased set of people are on the task force who will surely bypass the personal and political interests of faculty and administrators and arrive at a recommendation that will be in the best interests of students, faculty, and Purdue.
    Friday October 7, 2012

    A small group of undergraduate and graduate stuents have formed a group named Students for Computer and Engineering (SCSE). Their objective is to ensure that all barriers that currently exist between CS and Engineering are dispmantled by Purdue administration. Te group has a web site at

    Monday October 10, 2011

    (a) Head search: It appears that Dean Roberts and some members of the CS head search committee are preventing student involvement in the head search process. Students made an explicit request to the administration for representation on the head search committee. So far their request has been denied. Aditya has written to the provost requesting him to intervene.

    (b) Dean Roberts has denied students request for a copy of the report from the departmental external review committee. It is worth noting that the August 2006 report of the review committee titled "Strategic Plan Review" is public and accessible via the Internet. Also available is the External Review Committee Report Physics Department, School of Physics and Astronomy University of Minnesota (from where Dean Roberts came to Purdue). Many such reports are made public, and ought to be made public. However, for some unknown reason, Dean Roberts has decided not to make the report public. Below is a relevant extract from the College of Science Policies and Procedures Manual (note theuse of the term "full department"):

    "10. The final written report should be submitted to the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs
    within approximately one month of the site visit. The report should be public in nature, so
    that it may be circulated to the full Department. If the Team wishes to provide a more
    private document to the administration, that should be appended as a codicil to the public

    December 14, 2011
    [Computing task force creation]

    The Provost has created a task force to look into the issue of computing education at Purdue. Following is the list of task force members.

    Balakrishnan, Venkataraman (Head ECE)
    Doerge, Rebecca W (Head Statistics)
    Fahmy, Sonia (Professor, CS)
    Feleke,Yonatan (Student, Purdue@ Fort Wayne)
    Hacker, Thomas J (Associate Professor, C&IT)
    Hill, Brandon (Graduate Student, CS)
    Jordan, G Logan (Associate Dean, Krannert)
    Magana, Alejand (Assistant Professor, C&IT)
    McCartney, William G. (VP IT, and CIO; Chair);
    Midkiff, Sam (Professor, ECE)
    Miller, Joann L (Associate Dean, Liberal Arts)
    Mullins, James L. (Dean Purdue Libraries)
    Newton, Kathryne A (Head, Industrial Technology)
    Prabhakar, Sunil K (Head, CS)
    Rees, Jacquelyn M (Professor, Krannert)
    Spafford, Eugene (Professor, CS)
    Subbarayan, Ganesh (Professor ME)
    Szpankowski, Wojciech (Professor, CS)
    Vijaykumar, T. N. (Associate Professor, ECE)

    January 18, 2012
    [SCSE posters]

    The SCSE (Students for Computer and Engineering) has now created two posters that are being posted all over the campus and in some dorms. SCSE is keen on gaining support from students for breaking the barriers that exist between CS and Engineering. They have a Facebook site
    January 27, 2012
    [SCSE crosses 100 mark]
    Today the SCSE group crossed the 100 membership mark. One student also created a SCSE community site. This site has a poll "Should CS be added to the list of majors offered to the students in the College of Engineering?" At the time of updating this blog, 26 studnts have responded with ESs, one with a NO, and one with a "Maybe, I do not care."

    February 7, 2012
    [Computing task force]

    (a) The first meeting of the computing task force is over. Nothing important to write in this blog regarding the outcome of this meeting.

    (b) SCSE now has 108 members. Students want to know what should they do in order for Purdue to begin offering CS to first year engineering majors and to breakall barriers between CS and Engineering.

    (c) The SCSE poll status: 58 Yes; 7 conditional yes; 5 No; 2 don't care.

    February 10, 2012
    [Take down this blog]

    At today's CS faculty meeting some asked for this blog to be taken down. The concern expressed was that this blog is "hurting" the department. Please note that in addition to the objective mentioned at the top, this blog is intended to bring to light the 20+ year old conflict that has sexisted at various levels at Purdue regarding how CS and Computer Engineering are viewed by faculty and students and what should be done to resolve it.

    Iinternal politics and self-interests have prevented this conflict from coming out in the open and resolved. This lack of resolution has led to the denial of excellent opportunities for students, waste of precious university resources, and prevention of new synergies that will likely develop if CS, engineering disciplines and Computer Engineering are collaborating closely at all levels. Purue students have been starved of great opportunities exactly by our own faculty who have placed their self interest above the interests of the students.

    Self interests and politics have built up a tide of giant proportions that is preventing the department from doing great things. It is Aditya's sincere hope that with the help from students and some on the faculty, the department shall turn around. The self-interests will be defeated squarely by the desire for the good of the students.


    March 9, 2012
    [Course overlap]
    At a recent CS department faculty meeting one professor supported the duplication of courses in CS and CompE with the argument that if the duplication is removed the class sizes will increase significantly. Interestingly a fewl other members of the CS faculty--who do not support CS being in the College of Engineering-- have also tagged along with this argument. The foolishness as well as selfishness of this argument is indicated in the following scenario.

    Consider the freshman calculus class that is taken by nearly all Science and Engineering majors. Thus, calculus is taught at most universities in large classes. For example, MA 161 at Purdue has several lecture sections with over 300 students in each section. Now, if Purdue decides to go with the argument given by our professor colleague, then it would be best if each department in the College of Engineering and College of Science had its own course in calculus! Indeed, it would reduce class sizes drastically. But is it the right way to move forward?

    Most universities that have CompE and CS as two separate programs, similar courses are shared across the programs. For example, at Cornell a large number of courses are shared between the CS and CompE programs. These include CS 2110 (OO Programming and Data Structures), CS 2042 (Unix Tools), and CS 2044(Advanced Unix Programming), CS 3420 (Embedded Systems). Sharing similar courses among departments is a normal practice across universties. Purdue remains an exception. Unfortunately, selfish motives of some faculty are preventing Purdue from avoiding duplication and reducing wastage.

    University of Maryland has CompE and CS as two separate programs and in different colleges as at Purdue. However, they share courses. In fact the following quote from the U of Maryland Computer Engineering web site is indicative of how Maryland faculty colloborated in creating the CompE program: "In the Fall of 1997, the University of Maryland launched the BS degree program in Computer Engineering, drawing upon resources and expert faculty from both the departments of Electrical and Computer Engineering and Computer Science...." Similar to how Cornell handles CompE and CS courses, at Maryland CompE students take several CS courses including MSC132: Object Oriented Programming II, CMSC216: Introduction to Computer Systems, CMSC330: Organization of Programming Languages, CMSC351: Algorithms, and CMSC412: Operating Systems. Unfortunately, at Purduethese courses are not shared betwen the CS and CompE programs, instead they are duplicated.



    End of Event Log