Minutes+-+Sep+29

Attending: Furlanetto, Hansen, Margot, Morris, Ong (by telephone)

Discussion topics, all framed around last spring's proposal and objections it elicited from the faculty:

1. How many courses should be required?

JLM and BH argue that two quarters of extragalactic astronomy combined with mostly galaxy-oriented Astrophysical Dynamics is too much; wonder if two courses instead of three would be sufficient to meet Galaxies and Cosmology requirements. Could the additional Galaxies and Cosmology material be combined in one quarter? SF and MM disagree and argue that the "essential" portions are too extensive for a one-quarter course. JLM and BH argue that incoming students interested in exoplanets will perceive a problem with these course requirements. Differences remain unresolved (and are likely to remain so for the foreseeable future)! BH argues that, if we include everyone's "essentials", we will end up with a bloated curriculum, and this is probably how we arrived at our current state. He is in favour of a curriculum composed only of those subjects that make it onto the "essentials" list of the majority of the faculty. We need the intersection set, not the union!

JLM points out that the university requires only 9 courses for a PhD; department currently requires 11.

BH argues for a "minimal" required core, moving other courses into electives. JLM points out this would put Stars, ISM, Galaxies, and Exoplanets on a more equal footing. One possibility is to require, in addition to Fundamental Physics and Cosmology requirements, 3 out of the 4 subject courses (Stars, ISM, Galaxies, and Exoplanets). SF worries that too much choice would eliminate the breadth we desire (e.g., if students choose 4 of 6 courses, they could ignore both Galaxies and Cosmology), and that too complex of a system may not be worthwhile. BH: Although I do argue for a minimal required course, I don't like JLM's 3/4 proposal. I think core competencies in Stars, ISM and Extragalactic are all essential (in addition to the fundamental physics parts). I just feel that two extragalactic quarters is too much for a student who doesn't plan to do extragalactic astronomy.

MM argues that the core should explicitly cover the most active fields of astronomy, including both Cosmology and Exoplanets. BH and SF worry that Exoplanets is not a mature enough field to support a "core" course. MM points out that we are designing a curriculum for the next 20 years. JLM feels there is an asymmetry in the current requirements: students must take 2 or 3 galactic/extragalactic courses to graduate, but can get a degree without a single course on planets/exoplanets. BH: To be clearer about my objection - exoplanets is not yet a subject that is essential to other aspects of astronomy. A student who hasn't taken a course in Stars, ISM or cosmology will very likely encounter a situation where they will need some of that course, regardless of what they're doing. While exoplanets is undoubtedly a growth field, lacking an understanding of the ice line, migration or the Nice model is not likely to significantly hamstring any student studying in one of the other disciplines. It seems very obvious to me that this should be a popular elective, but not a required course. As for the "20 year" argument - we can always revise and update the plan if things evolve that far.

2. How many of the four "Fundamentals" courses (Radiation I and II, Dynamics, Quantum Mechanics) should be offered every year (as opposed to every other year)? Should we aim for more teaching slots for the graduate program?

General agreement that the system as proposed (with Radiation I taught annually but Radiation II, Dynamics, QM taught every other year) is workable but not ideal, and that more FTEs would be helpful. MM mentions that the schedule as written requires about 7 teaching slots/year, which seems very reasonable. JLM pointed out that, because the qualifying exam takes place at the end of the second year, a two-year cycle makes sense.

RO asked that because the teaching balance between grad/undergrad and astronomy/physics is squishy, what does it mean to request more teaching power? MM responded that, as vice-chair, there was often difficulty filling the astro grad classes.

BH pointed out that the demise of IGPP means that, in the short-term, there are 2 extra teaching slots amongst the astro faculty (BH and Ghez). BH also pointed out that those two faculty are in a position to buy themselves out for a quarter in the near term, so the math may end up being the same.

3. Should we support alternate tracks for exoplanets and/or astroparticle physics?

BH recommends reducing the number of required courses and allowing students to fill out requirements with the electives but retaining the system overall. BH: I think the guiding principle here should be to give the students the maximum possible flexibility once we have met our obligation to prepare them for a career in astronomy.

MM recommends constructing lists of ESS and Physics courses that we would allow as substitutes for our core courses.

SF asks how many ESS courses planet students would need to take, and how many physics courses astroparticle students would need to take. RO says it is not a particularly large number (E&M would be one area).

RO worries that the curriculum as written is not attractive to astroparticle students because of the lack of crossover with physics. MM points out that alternate tracks would allow us to retain that attraction by allowing students to specialize.

4. MM and JLM will attend astronomy faculty meeting on Oct. 4 and report back to committee.