One of the most important issues at this year's TBP National Convention is that of determining eligibility for TBP election of CS majors, amongst others.
This is a discussion blog for TBP CS Alliance partners to bounce ideas off each other and communicate amongst one another.
Please identify yourself and your organization in each post.
Wednesday, September 22, 2004
Articulating our goals
One of the stated objectives of this blog is to try and keep everyone on the same page. I would like to do this by recommending that we bounce our own ideas off each other.
As a start, I would say that Stanford TBP's objectives are "to ensure that CS programs with engineering foci are recognised as engineering programs eligible for TBP". Please read the comments for a detailed explanation.
(Jason Bay, Vice-President, CA-G)
- posted by bayboy @ 5:00 PM
Comments:
<< Home
There are a lot of nuances going into this that were raised at meetings between the Stanford School of Engineering and our TBP chapter.
1. The ideal situation would be for schools to decide, via their choice of which majors to house in the school of engineering, whether or not a major was an engineering program. However, this opens a whole can of worms, because people opposed to Engineering Science, Engineering Technology and other questionable majors would chime in and dilute the debate at hand. Fundamentally, we feel that it is important that we keep the debate as tightly focused on the question of "will TBP recognise CS programs under certain conditions? or will it dismiss them out of hand?" as possible.
2. We are aware that PA-A and a few other chapters are offended enough by the EC as to recommend the impeachment of the EC amongst other measures. Stanford feels that this will unnecessarily open another can of worms, with a whole new debate on "is the EC doing a competent job?" coming to the forefront. What is most important, for Stanford at least, is that this issue is resolved this year, at this convention, unequivocally and without further ambiguity. We cannot let it drag, and it is simply unacceptable to Stanford if we should initiate any batch of TBP candidates that does not include CS students.
One can see from the above 2 points, the rationale for the wording of our current proposal. In effect, we are playing along with the EC up to and until the point where CS comes into contention. There we diverge, and that is where we want the debate on the counter-amendment focused, i.e. the question of whether local chapters should be allowed to decide on CS eligibility. The wording is I think pliable at this point, since 'consider' is pretty vague, but the spirit is intact. The outcome of that vote, then, would tell CA-G at Stanford whether or not it is worthwhile to continue our association with TBP.
Post a Comment
1. The ideal situation would be for schools to decide, via their choice of which majors to house in the school of engineering, whether or not a major was an engineering program. However, this opens a whole can of worms, because people opposed to Engineering Science, Engineering Technology and other questionable majors would chime in and dilute the debate at hand. Fundamentally, we feel that it is important that we keep the debate as tightly focused on the question of "will TBP recognise CS programs under certain conditions? or will it dismiss them out of hand?" as possible.
2. We are aware that PA-A and a few other chapters are offended enough by the EC as to recommend the impeachment of the EC amongst other measures. Stanford feels that this will unnecessarily open another can of worms, with a whole new debate on "is the EC doing a competent job?" coming to the forefront. What is most important, for Stanford at least, is that this issue is resolved this year, at this convention, unequivocally and without further ambiguity. We cannot let it drag, and it is simply unacceptable to Stanford if we should initiate any batch of TBP candidates that does not include CS students.
One can see from the above 2 points, the rationale for the wording of our current proposal. In effect, we are playing along with the EC up to and until the point where CS comes into contention. There we diverge, and that is where we want the debate on the counter-amendment focused, i.e. the question of whether local chapters should be allowed to decide on CS eligibility. The wording is I think pliable at this point, since 'consider' is pretty vague, but the spirit is intact. The outcome of that vote, then, would tell CA-G at Stanford whether or not it is worthwhile to continue our association with TBP.
<< Home
