From brings Thu Apr 24 11:37:48 1997 Received: from hopfield.phil.rpi.edu (brings@hopfield.phil.rpi.edu [128.113.33.20]) by mail1.its.rpi.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA42776; Thu, 24 Apr 1997 11:37:46 -0400 From: Selmer Bringsjord Received: (brings@localhost) by hopfield.phil.rpi.edu (8.6.9/8.6.4) id LAA23534; Thu, 24 Apr 1997 11:37:45 -0400 Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 11:37:45 -0400 Message-Id: <199704241537.LAA23534@hopfield.phil.rpi.edu> To: millard Subject: Pressley suggestions (1st wave) Cc: porusd, selmer X-UIDL: 227764afbba39c50e343b5883e31c8f1 Status: R

Suggestions for Proposal -- compliled by S. Bringsjord 4/24/97

  1. Inter-penetration is crucial. Must show why project1 should be together w/ project2 w/ p3 w/ p4. Otherwise they can be done w/i earshot. Inter-penetration is the hardest things. Unless we are talking a lot to each other, or have someone on top of all the relevant lit, how will we pull off something other than a hodge-podge. Might a retreat be worth 7.5million?
  2. There will be a number of reviewers who don't understand each other's work in any real way. A proposal that is based in large part on just a few simple, compelling ideas might win; one that lacks these will fail. Need ideas that the reviewers can all parse completely. Here is one possibility:
    • Rensselaer is arguably the most high-powered institution in the world when it comes to educational technology. What about the rest of the world? Well, Clinton and others have plans, big plans, for how to improve American society and culture via ed tech. So what if one of our big "hooks" is that we will find a way to make all these dreams come true by bringing the world the hottests most effective stuff?
  3. Obtain all relevant national documents (e.g., Goals 2000) and incorporate them into the proposal.
  4. The proposal will be dead if
    • There is any behavioristic flavor to it.
    • There is any "mental health" flavor to it.
    • Inter-penetration is not obvious.
    • There is a shortage of rigorous experimental design.
    • There are no plans for "broadcasting" things here to the world.
  5. As soon as possible, determine the last person in the chain at NSF, the career civial servant, and start a dialogue using your "best talker." This person has the power to reverse decisions made by the review panel. Since the proposal in question will certainly be rated fundable, this is very important.
  6. These are often done deals. You will find out by attending to "hall talk" (w/ Don doing a lot of listening, e.g.), and by calling the candidates for the Advisory Board (since in some cases they will be the ones in other proposals).
  7. Lay plans to bring our tech to distant sites in districts controlled by the most powerful U.S. Senators.
  8. Get our NYS senators on-board. Their doors will be open. Call them ASAP.
  9. Even low-tech stuff that is rigorously investigated and brought to the nation is very powerful. We can have the best tech, and still fail miserably. Bransford does low-tech stuff, but everyone knows about it. Washington believes that the best Center is one everyone knows about; the worst center is one no one knows about.
  10. Try to get PBS involved, etc. -- aiming for "broadcasting" all this stuff you're doing. Otherwise you'll be first with the tech, and then Harvard will do it tomorrow and you're dead.
  11. For the Advisory Board, be careful. Certain famous people upset 5 people for every 10 they make happy. Avoid people like this (e.g., RS). Consider:
    • John Bransford
    • Don Anderson
    • Richard Meyer
    • Mike Pressley
    • John Wright
    • John Brewer (sp?)
    • Joe Torgesen
    The Ad Board should have a timeline associated w/ it in the proposal. They should visit at inception, and half-way through. Each should supply a letter for the proposal; the letters should be collected into an Appendix.