Computer Science Tackles Preregistration

Students and instructors in a computer science course are attempting to identify and solve the problems that led up to last year’s preregistration debate.

The 11 students enrolled in Computer Science 96, “System Design Projects,” are currently gathering data through guest speakers drawn from the faculty and administration.

After identifying the issues which contributed to the preregistration controversy, the class will attempt to devise computer-based models that could potentially solve the problems, according to McKay Professor of Computer Science Stuart M. Shieber ’81.

“This course is fundamentally different from the majority of courses because it is not about professors imparting a body of knowledge to the students. Here, the instructional staff know no more than students. We pick a real problem which involve real people who are interested,” Shieber said.

One of the common misconceptions about the course is that it is an attempt to discuss or even solve the “preregistration problem” itself, according to Shieber.

“Preregistration is not the problem. Preregistration is supposed to be the answer to the problem. The question to ask, is, what is the problem or problems which lead to the proposal of preregistration in the first place?” he said.

To answer these questions, Shieber invited several faculty members and administrators to brief the students on what they thought were the major concerns and problems regarding the University’s current policy on course registration.

Among those invited by Sheiber was Dean of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences Peter T. Ellison.

“[The preregistration program was proposed in part] because we have a problem with the appointment process of teaching fellows—but that was not the only reason it was proposed,” he said.

But Ellison said that problems with the appointment process for teaching fellows was only one of the reasons preregistration was originally proposed.

The “real problem,” according to Ellison, is academic planning, including a host of problems such as unpredictable course enrollments, accommodating faculty leaves and student advising.

“How are we going to judge the impact unless we have some way of assessing what students want? How can we prepare what students want if we don’t know anything in advance?” said Ellison, who said that last year some faculty members indicated they believed that course enrollments could be predicted.

Assistant Dean of the College John O’Keefe said that there are “at least” two solutions to the current problems—preregistration or predicting course enrollments.

“I think if we can predict enrollment without a system of preregistration, that would seem a promising solution without doing away with shopping period—and that is what students are concerned about,” O’Keefe said.

The Core curriculum has not encountered serious problems as a result of the current registration process precisely because the administrators predict class numbers, according to Core curriculum director Susan Lewis, who also spoke to the class.

“It isn’t the Core where the problem arises primarily. The reason why C.S. 96 asked me to provide information is because we have been doing projections for course enrollment within the Core for a long time. We’ve been trying to do this so that faculty can select teaching staff for the Core,” Lewis said.

But Shieber maintained that while course enrollment prediction might be a by-product of his class’ research, it is by no means the course’s sole purpose.

“We are targeting the problems that led to preregistration,” Shieber re-emphasized.

Ultimately, the class’ work will be compiled and presented to administrators and faculty who contributed to the study, he said.