Matt Greenwell wrote:

> i'm not sure how constructive your black and white distillation of this
> issue is. it's a pedantic and patronizing response that does nothing to
> further the thoughtful resolution of what is sure to be a very complex
> problem for us all.

Sorry you took offense to it.  It wasn't intended that way, and I have
yet to hear from David so I have no idea of what he thinks of it.  I
didn't take offense to him referring to my previous post (and Jim's) as
"illogical and romantic" ... I just stated my rebuttal as briefly and
(admittedly) bluntly as possible in order to stimulate just the sort of
discussion you seem to be advocating.  I'm actually rather disappointed
that yours is the only reply I've seen so far.  Maybe I need to work
harder to be controversial and provoke people into thinking about such
things and responding to my opinions ;)

> maintaining a quality education with a 120 hour
> requirement is possible, in my opinion (and here i tend to agree with
> david),

Well, there we will have to agree to disagree, I guess.  Maintaining
*some* level of quality is no doubt possible, and maybe our students
won't lose out *too* much (however we might define that) but I believe
anyone who thinks we can cut out 8 hours (however thoughtfully we do it)
and not lose something in the process is just plain wrong.  I'm not
familiar with David's program or yours, but I can promise you our CS
students are going to miss out on some things if we have to cut 8 hours.
  It could very possibly result in us losing the accreditation we
recently achieved, but even if not, something will have to give.

> but will require some careful and sometimes difficult decisions
> to be made-at potentially all levels of the university: in individual
> departments, in the gen-ed committee, and in the university as a whole.
> that differences of opinion on this issue will best be resolved through
> debate is both proper and inevitable. that the debate remain civil and
> productive is a choice we make.

I don't think I was uncivil.  Blunt, yes.  A bit sarcastic, yes.  Any
less civil than "illogical and romantic"?  I think not.  But my
apologies to anyone who took it that way.  I guess I just have a thicker
skin than most and so I tend to look over pointed comments like this; I
don't know if that is an argument for other people to grow thicker skin
or for me to thin mine down somewhat.  Anyway, here's wishing a good day
to you, David, and the rest of the campus.

Joe