1) I agree with most of Chris' and Dick's earlier remarks. In
particular, I think some of us believe that distance learning, if not
proven, is certainly a plausible idea, and that M.I.T. may well have an
advantage in certain specific distance learning markets.
2) I think the recommendations as regards curriculum development funds
remain very weak. The entire effort is doomed unless faculty take up the
charge; most faculty will take up the charge only if there are funds to
support the effort. The funds can not simply be an earmarked subpool of
a larger recurring cost (e.g., yearly curriculum development funds): we
need high visibility, clear lines of responsibility, readily identified
deliverables, a finite timeframe, and an oversight committee with
"teeth."
I quote (with some expansion) from my earlier email:
"We recommend that new funds be raised or dedicated to sponsor 5-10
projects that, based on assumed--realized short--term recommendations,
realize the medium-- and long--term recommendations. The projects would
be awarded based on cross--Institute competitive proposals; would
receive scrutiny directly from Academic Council and the new standing
faculty committee on academic computing (this last group providing
direct oversight and recommendations to Academic Council); and would be
amply funded to provide faculty with both the resources AND "release"
time required for successful completion. Selected projects must provide
high visibility, clear lines of responsibility, readily identified
deliverables, and a finite timeframe. We expect this effort will demand
roughly $1M/year for three years. Only faculty or groups of faculty may
submit proposals, although on-campus or off--campus computing service
providers may be enlisted as "sub-contractors."
3) The EECS VI-A program is a good candidate for "a project," however I
think it is best included as an example of a possible PROPOSAL. Other
departments may have similar ideas; we should not prejudge the selection
process.
Tony