Institute of Technology
Minutes of the ITICC Meeting,
January 18, 2007
3:35 p.m., Physics 133
Present: Bryan Carlson (ADCS), Doug Ernie (ECE), Michelle Forster (CEMS), Peter Hudleston (IT Dean’s Office), Terry Jones (Astro), Joe Konstan (CSE), Shyong Lam (CSciE), Jerry Larson (ADCS), Larry LeMay (ADCS), Jim MacDonald (CSE, IT Labs), Dan MacEwan (Chem), Kent Mann (Chem), Jeremiah Mans (Phys), Ray Muno (AEM/ME), Sean O’Neill (Astro), Roger Rusack (Phys), Tom Shield (AEM), Larry Storey (CEMS), Dale Swanson (ECE), Juan P. Trelles (ME), Stacy Weisenbeck (AEM)
1) Status reports from CSciE and ADCS and PJH
The start up of the labs has been smooth, although the problem with the profiles encountered last semester is still not resolved. LeMay reported that it has been hard to get the labs fully staffed with consultants this semester, so there have been some holes in the schedule. He also noted that the cash-to-card machine in Lind Hall has been removed, which may create some inconvenience for those wishing to print.
Hudleston said he has had discussions with MacDonald about planning for a single-entity management structure next year. He said that there would continue to be a close working relationship with ADCS, but that overall management responsibility would reside with Computer Science and Engineering.
2) Review of Spring Business
Hudleston handed out a provisional schedule of agenda items for the spring. This is a “busy” year, since in addition to the annual consideration of improvements for the public labs, the new management contract is to be developed, new initiatives are to be solicited for improving instructional computing in lower division, and this is the year for reviewing the next round of three-year proposals for lower division computing in chemistry, physics, astronomy, geology and possibly math.
3) Mathematica and/or Matlab for Students
Discussion continued from last fall of a proposal to acquire licenses that would allow students to load Mathematica and Matlab on their personal computers. Since the last meeting, Kachelmyer has obtained more information from the vendors about options and costs. He handed out a sheet providing the details. One important thing to note is that the licensing cannot be restricted to IT-fee-paying students. If a license were purchased, it would apply to all students at the University. Any other arrangement that restricted use to IT students would be more costly. The proposals from both vendors involve annual renewals. Both proposals also assume that existing licenses are continued.
The situation with Mathematica is straightforward: the cost is $9,000 per year. It is more complex with Matlab, with several possible packages to choose among. The most basic is Matlab and Simulink, for which the annual cost for the student option is $27,250. Toolboxes cost an additional $2,100 each, with a selected package of 12 available for about $10,000. Muno had mentioned earlier based on a presentation by MathWorks that a campus-wide option of Matlab would cost more than $100,000 a year.
There was much discussion about what toolboxes students would most likely need. Many of those needed for ME and AEM classes are not among the 12 in the offered package, and many of those in this package are not ones most students would need. It was concluded that the best option would be the basic one, i.e. Matlab plus Simulink, without any toolboxes. Students can do much with this. They would need to use the IT labs for classes requiring particular toolboxes. [After the meeting, Muno obtained more information from MathWorks. The Student Option version of Matlab that comes with the proposed license is the most current full professional version of the software, whereas the version that can be purchased individually by students – through TechMart for instance – is a few versions back, and has some restrictions. The Student Option version also gets support, updates and upgrades, which the individual student version does not. Although toolboxes can be added, they cannot be added on an individual basis.]
It is clear that course-related work is covered under the licenses, and that any commercial use is prohibited. But what about research? Would using the software for thesis research be this covered under the licensing agreement? [Kachelmyer subsequently obtained clarification form the vendors to establish that any work done in conjunction with completing a degree would be covered – so thesis research would be included.]
Konstan asked what the breakeven point for purchasing these licenses would be? That is, how many students would be covered before the cost of individual licenses purchased by students equaled the cost of the campus-wide student license. For Mathematica [for which the cost to an individual student is $124] this is about 100, and for Matlab [for which the cost to an individual student is $89] about 300. On a per student basis the cost campus wide is less than $1 per student for Mathematica and Matlab combined. Only a small percentage of students would need to use the software to make it cost effective.
Who would use this software? Of students on the committee at the meeting, opinions were mixed. Some like to write their own code for mathematical calculations, but others make use of available software. Hudleston noted that Matlab is by far the most used software package in the IT labs, suggesting it would be well used on personal computers. Having it available on personal computers would allow students to do more of their work at home and away from the labs.
Hudleston said he intends to move ahead with the proposal to obtain student licensing of Mathematica and Matlab. Given the fact that all students on campus could take advantage of the licensing, he said that he would invite other colleges to contribute to the cost. His proposal would be that IT cover half, and that other colleges among them cover the other half. Most colleges have programs and majors that make use of mathematical software, especially CBS, but also programs in CLA, CSOM, CFANS and others.
Hudleston said he would solicit contributions from the other colleges and put this to the vote of ITICC.
4) Other Business
None