Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
8 — Wednesday, October 26, 2022
I
n
recent
years,
the
University
of
Michigan
has been facing a problem
common to many universities:
too many students are enrolling in
computer science courses.
To alleviate this, the University
began by trying to hire new
computer science (CS) professors,
with
limited
success.
Though
the
Department
of
Computer
Science and Engineering (CSE)
does have some new professors
slated to begin teaching next
year, Electrical Engineering and
Computer Science course waitlists
remain complicated, and faculty-
to-student ratios remain low.
It’s easy to understand why
convincing established computer
scientists to enter academia is
so difficult, especially when the
starting salary of programmers is so
high. With such a high opportunity
cost of entering academia, many
would-be professors are choosing
to stay in the professional world,
leading to a national shortage of
computer science professors.
Computer
science
is
now
the most popular major at the
University, representing 11% of all
undergrads. With more and more
students enrolling in CS courses,
CSE announced that new U-M
students will need to apply to the
major during their senior year of
high school through the Common
Application, making the entry
process more similar to the Ross
School of Business’s application
method. This would help limit
the class sizes in CSE courses, but
it would also make the program
far more competitive and less
accessible to most U-M students.
Though there would be an option to
apply into the major as an “Enrolled
Discoverer,” for those who find a
love of CS once already at Michigan,
the University has confirmed that
these seats for Enrolled Discoverers
would only account for a minority
of CS spots. If a first-year student
is admitted to the University but
rejected from the CS program, they
are disallowed from applying as an
“Enrolled Discoverer,” an arbitrary
limitation with seemingly limited
utility for either thinning class sizes
or choosing the best CS majors.
While there are reasons to
critique this new University policy,
the changes will have concrete
benefits for the program. The
University has long been praised
for being one of the few top-ranked
universities with an open CS major,
but this hasn’t always worked to its
advantage. Schools with closed CS
majors, like the University of Illinois
Urbana-Champaign (UIUC) , have
been able to keep class sizes small
and offer more concentrations and
electives. U-M students, on the
other hand, must fiercely compete
for spots in upper-level CS courses,
and no concentrations are offered.
Though
James
Earl
Jones
routinely proclaims that “we are
the best university in the world” at
every home U-M football game, the
differences between the computer
science programs at UIUC and
the University of Michigan tell a
different story. Because of the more
robust CS curriculum at Illinois
— made possible through smaller
class sizes — UIUC routinely ranks
in the top 5 computer science
programs in the country, beating
Michigan while having a notably
higher acceptance rate.
Restricting
the
Computer
Science major would lower class
sizes and allow more specialization
within the major. However, though
changes to the Computer Science
program
as
proposed
might
increase the University’s prestige
at a national level and facilitate the
management of class sizes, there
are potential downsides to this
shift.
While the application will be
open to any student interested
in
completing
a
bachelor’s
degree
in
Computer
Science,
there is an undeniable gap in the
quality of high school education
students across the country and
at an international level receive,
highlighting the socioeconomic gap
between these groups of students
and subsequently giving some
students an advantage over others.
Students who went to high schools
that offered computer science
courses will have the upper hand
at the expense of those who never
had access to the same resources.
Even though the proportion of high
schools that offer Computer Science
courses has increased, disparities
still persist. For example, Latino
students are 1.4 times less likely to
enroll in Computer Science classes
than white and Asian students, thus
reinforcing the status quo in an
already fairly racially homogenous
discipline.
This, not even to mention
the core question: how do we
choose good computer scientists?
High
school
applicants
offer
severely limited information to
an
undergraduate
admissions
committee. Getting an 800 on the
reading portion of your SAT might
impress an admissions officer, but
what does it say about an applicant’s
ability to build a neural net 10 years
down the line? Specialization is
good, and necessary in our modern
economy, but we are sorely remiss
if we intend to forbid students from
studying whole disciplines at the
age of 18.
Moreover, limiting admission
to students who are entirely
sure they are going to major in
computer science will limit the
intellectual diversity of the major
and, consequently, the types of
computer scientists the University
is sending out into the world. It is
important to admit students who
have interdisciplinary interests,
which students who are still unsure
that they want to study computer
science are more likely to have.
Knowledge in the humanities and
the social sciences is necessary for
jobs in the technology industry, as
exemplified by demands for tech-
savvy
humanities
professionals
in Silicon Valley. That is not to
say that every computer scientist
needs to recite Hamlet in their free
time, but rather that different, and
incredibly valuable, outlooks are
possible when a student draws from
more places than just their core
discipline.
The
restrictive
application
process may also run the risk of
scaring students out of applying due
to the rigor and high expectations
of admissions. Many students
might not apply out of fear that,
because they have not already had
a measure of CS education, they
will be disqualified from studying
computer science at the University
for the rest of their undergraduate
career.
Remember,
students
rejected from the CS major when
applying may not reapply as
Enrolled Discoverers. On top of
courses that already discourage
students from continuing to pursue
a specific degree program (weeder
classes), the intimidating threat
of not getting into the program
initially, and therefore precluded
from applying as an Enrolled
Discoverer,
forces
prospective
CS majors with less-than-stellar
programming backgrounds into a
cruel gamble.
In
order
to
combat
the
challenges facing the increasingly
understaffed
program
while
maintaining
the
University’s
commitment to equity, it is vital
that the CS department explores
alternative solutions in both the
short and long terms. Since many
classes are currently capped by the
number of seats available in person,
CS majors often find registering
for classes incredibly challenging.
Over the course of the pandemic,
however,
the
CS
department
successfully experimented with
remote
options
for
courses,
which often streamlined the core
operations of classes by freeing
resources to help with office hours
and grading. In offering remote
sections of each core course in the
major, the CS department could
allow more students to enroll in
classes with minimal learning loss
due to the existence of in-person
supporting resources.
Though a closed major remains
necessary until hiring can catch
up, the CS department would
also be well-advised to model its
admissions process after the Ford
School of Public Policy instead of
Ross. While Ross admits a majority
of its class as direct-admits out of
high school and opens a limited
number of highly competitive seats
to students already at Michigan,
Ford only allows students to apply
at the end of their sophomore year.
Among students, there’s some
debate over the efficacy of each
model. John Sader, an Engineering
freshman and prospective CS
major, told us that because CS, like
Ross, is selecting for certain skills
upon admission, “CS is different
enough (from) other engineering
disciplines,”
for
a
Ross-type
model to be appropriate. Kevin
Ji, an Engineering junior in the
CS program, on the other hand,
argued that a Ford-like model is
better since it would give students
“a year or two to explore the
major and decide from there.” For
Sader though, what’s ultimately
important is that the University is
“transparent with the admissions
process.”
By restricting application to
the major until students have
completed
the
prerequisites
necessary for it, the University can
successfully limit the effects of
the resource gap in CS high school
education.
While hiring in the long run will
likely catch up and make a return
to the current program format
possible, by using this moment
to initiate a paradigm shift in the
major, the CS department can
enact positive long-term change.
Though CS-adjacent programs
like the School of Information
(SI) and Data Science exist, the
lack of a governing body over such
majors makes sharing resources
challenging.
With
a
highly
theoretical CS major, Michigan
rigorously
builds
students’
foundations in the subject, but
often fails to provide significant
industry experience. SI, on the
other hand, offers a curriculum
highly relevant to the industry but
suffers from a presumed lack of
prestige relative to a CS degree.
By
creating
a
College
of
Computer Science in the mold of
SI, for example, the University
could offer a richer experience
by offering concentrations, more
CS-related majors and greater
opportunities to explore electives.
By investing in CS-related majors
like data science and UX design,
the University can cater to a
wider set of interests and free
resources in many current core
classes. Additionally, because of
the inherent crossover between
majors, CS students in each
major would be able to explore
concentrations that overlap across
disciplines, allowing for a well-
rounded CS education.
Furthermore,
this
shift
in
program structure could also
alleviate the hiring challenges
the department faces. With more
industry courses, a School of
Computer Science could have
PhD students and guest lecturers
make up a greater component
of its teaching staff. While most
theoretical courses would still
be taught by professors, many
practical ones are better suited
to the pedagogical style of those
with industry experience. Overall,
this long-term shift could prove
tremendously beneficial to both
the prestige and utility of a U-M
CS
degree,
maintaining
fair,
competitive admissions standards
while increasing the resources
available to each student.
After struggling for years to
maintain small class sizes and
support the onslaught of new CS
students entering the major, the
University clearly needed to make
a change in the program. While
the closed major is a step in the
right direction, it’s important
that the University addresses the
equity concerns stemming from
this approach and works toward
a more sustainable department
structure in the long run.
By
capitalizing
on
the
breathing room a closed major
allows the department, the CS
administration should also work
toward the long-term creation of
a “School of Computer Science,”
or other consolidated program,
that would allow U-M students to
obtain a CS degree while pursuing
different
concentration
areas
across the field. By doing this, the
program could expand its national
prestige and distribute resources
more effectively to prevent future
hiring shortages.
Though
there
remains
significant work to be done to
improve the CS program, taking
the bold step to close the major
has the opportunity to accelerate
meaningful change. In order
to effectively accomplish this,
however, the department should
revamp its admissions process and
restructure the current program
format to alleviate pre-existing
shortcomings.
From The Daily: Changes to
Computer Science major are needed,
but current execution is questionable
THE MICHIGAN DAILY
EDITORIAL BOARD
Y
ou’ve probably already
heard
about
his
impressive
résumé,
his social media savvy, his talent
with the cello and his penchant
for bow ties. Many will likely be
clamoring for a #SelfieWithSanta
since his arrival at the University
this month.
But at the University of British
Columbia, where Ono served as
president for six years, some of
us have come to realize that the
glowing profiles of him aren’t
telling you everything.
Forget the hype from the
Board of Regents: the students,
faculty and staff of the University
deserve a fuller picture of their
new president. In that spirit,
here are a few reasons to think
twice about President Ono.
Ono hosted a fundraiser with
an alleged abuser of Indigenous
children. John Furlong was
disinvited as keynote speaker
of the fundraiser because of
allegations
of
physical
and
psychological
abuse,
but
as
president of UBC, Ono reinstated
him following pressure from
wealthy donors. The allegations
against Furlong stem from his
time as a teacher in a remote
Indigenous community. Some
of his alleged victims attended
protests against him led by
UBC students, and the only
Indigenous
member
of
the
university’s
Sexual
Assault
Policy Committee stepped down
from that committee because of
the fundraiser.
Ono failed to take appropriate
action against a climate of sexual
violence. During Ono’s tenure at
UBC, at least six students in one
night received medical treatment
for suspected druggings at a
frat
party.
The
university’s
Sexual Assault Support Centre
said it was “troubled by UBC’s
response”
and
“urges
the
university
to
refrain
from
dismissing this incident as an
anomaly”
—
echoing
events
at Ono’s previous university,
the University of Cincinnati.
Soon afterward, when a female
professor criticized the frats
involved about being invited to
participate in a Remembrance
Day ceremony, she was subjected
to a torrent of misogynistic
verbal abuse and threats online.
The
university,
rather
than
condemn the abuse, responded
by affirming its “commitment
to freedom of expression and
academic freedom” on both
sides.
Ono supported UBC’s hosting
of dangerous far-right figures.
The
university
hosted,
or
attempted to host, a range of
speakers during Ono’s tenure
who
were
peddling
white
supremacist,
Islamophobic
and neo-Nazi propaganda. On
most occasions, these speakers
were invited by student groups
known
for
their
extreme
views and looking to provoke
controversy, and at least one
anti-trans speaker with known
ties to an alt-right street gang
rented a room directly from
the university. In the latter
case, Ono provided inaccurate
information to the university,
incorrectly claiming that as
many
community
members
supported the event as opposed
it, after which UBC was barred
from
the
annual
Vancouver
Pride parade. At another event,
attendees physically attacked
protesters outside the venue in
the presence of campus security,
and
Ono’s
Vice
President
of
Students,
Ainsley
Carry,
subsequently had dinner with
the organizers.
Ono
repeatedly
failed
to
address concerns from students,
faculty and staff. One month
before
another
speaking
engagement, Ono received a
letter signed by 25 concerned
faculty members and graduate
students, and his administration
only replied five months later
— that is, four months after
the event. In spite of further
outcry from the community, the
university continued to justify
these events by issuing a release,
again citing its 40-year-old
Statement on Academic Freedom
and
callously
referring
the
students who were negatively
impacted to the university’s
already overburdened mental
health services.
Ono failed to act to keep
tuition
affordable.
Students
endured
consistent
annual
increases in tuition fees under
Ono’s tenure, including during
the pandemic — driving students
“further into poverty and debt.”
For
domestic
undergraduate
students, these increases were
as high as was legally allowed. In
2021, the university attributed
the tuition hikes, in part, to
“equity, diversity, and inclusion
initiatives”
and
Indigenous
reconciliation, before deleting
the relevant web page. After
the backlash to these increases,
UBC became even less receptive
to feedback on tuition fees.
In 2022, the annual tuition
“consultation” process, already
widely perceived as a charade,
was replaced by an even more
restricted
“engagement”
process.
Ono demonstrated a lack
of
financial
transparency.
Amazon announced plans to
open
Canada’s
first
“Cloud
Innovation Centre” at UBC
while the company was under
scrutiny for the obscene wealth
of its founder Jeff Bezos, for the
abysmal working conditions of
its employees, and for providing
the
tech
infrastructure
for
US Immigration and Customs
Enforcement
(ICE).
There
was no consultation with the
university community on the
matter, and the terms of the
deal were not made public. The
contract was finally obtained
by a student group through a
freedom of information request
after a nine-month delay. Later,
it was revealed that Ono was
following orders from Amazon
to keep $3 million in funding
from the company a secret.
Ono allowed UBC to try
to
avoid
responsibility
for
environmental harm. Despite
its reputation for sustainability,
in 2019 UBC was convicted
of dumping ammonia into a
creek that flows into the Fraser
River, poisoning much wildlife.
The incident occurred in 2014,
before Ono’s arrival, but under
his leadership, the university
chose to appeal the conviction
as well as the 1.2 million CAD
(approximately $900,000) fine
earmarked for local habitat
restoration to repair damage
caused by the dumping. A
spokesperson
declined
to
comment to reporters on the
cost of the legal fees, or whether
the appeal was being funded
with public money. As part of
the appeal, UBC argued that the
ammonia solution dumped was
not a “deleterious substance.” It
lost the appeal.
A
university
president
deserves
credit
for
their
successes.
But
as
a
public
official who will be raking in
over $1.3 million per year plus
benefits, the community must
also hold him accountable for
the mistakes for which he is
responsible.
We largely failed to do so at
UBC: Ono, who was granted a
second term as president here,
leaves midway through this
term having faced few if any
repercussions, let alone formal
sanctions, from the university
for
the
incidents
described
above, and appears to be as
popular as ever. Hopefully you’ll
keep a closer eye on him at the
University of Michigan.
Behind the bow tie:
What the University of Michigan
needs to know about Santa Ono
JONATHAN
TURCOTTE-SUMMERS
Opinion Contributor
Stanford Lipsey Student Publications Building
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.
PAIGE HODDER
Editor in Chief
JULIAN BARNARD AND
SHUBHUM GIROTI
Editorial Page Editors
Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of The Daily’s Editorial Board.
All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
Ammar Ahmad
Julian Barnard
Brandon Cowit
Jess D’Agostino
Ben Davis
Shubhum Giroti
Devon Hesano
Sophia Lehrbaum
Olivia Mouradian
Siddharth Parmar
Rushabh Shah
Nikhil Sharma
Lindsey Spencer
Evan Stern
Anna Trupiano
Jack Tumpowsky
Alex Yee
Quin Zapoli
VANESSA KIEFER
AND KATE WEILAND
Managing Editors
GRACE BEAL/Daily