Here are some suggestions for the MegaCenter curriculum:

1. Integrate research projects and application work directly into the theory and foundation courses.
2. Develop courses that are taught by interdisciplinary teams consisting of humanities faculty and faculty from other schools.
3. Use teleconferencing to teach collaborative courses with faculty and students at other universities in the U.S. and abroad.

• Intro to Visual Communication (43-1510)
• The Communication Process (43-2520)
• Intro to HCI Usability* (43-696--)
• Electronic Coaching* (43-696--)
• Communication Design for the Web* (43-696--)
• HCI Design Studio* (43-696--)
• Communication Theory (43-6510)
• Computer Mediated Communication
• Organizational Communication (43-4830)

• Scientific Visualization--a course theam taught by artists and scientists (the "Renaissance" team approach pioneered at the NSF Supercomputer Center at the University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana).
• Intercultural Design--a course that focuses on the social and cultural issues that impact design.

Selmer,

I have had a chance to think about the list at greater length, and to discuss it with our faculty. Here is what we think that H&SS can contribute:

1. Creativity enhancement
2. Self expression skills
3. Communication skills
4. A vision of possible futures
5. Historical, social and cultural perspectives
6. Media literacy and awareness
7. Multi-media utilization/interface
8. Information theory and linguistics
9. Economic literacy
10. Visualization and cognitive skills
11. Ethics
12. Critical thinking / Analytical and Integrative skills
13. Critical theory
14. Modeling and Simulation
15. Showcasing the Institutional effort

Information Curriculum Commmittee focused on degrees (school-wide). No other prgrams in same conceptual league. Start with curriculum letting lead rather than research. Does application ring work? Concentric structure: applications -> methodology -> applications. (Faye) the applications drive the research, e.g., virtual reality; artificial life. Larry wants to look at education -- current model is ruining us, people & RPI. A focus on our business -- education. Works for research, not undergrad curriculum. Larry wants us to look at how you break barriers between (h.s.) and college, class barriers, info access barriers. Uneven distribution of talents and abilities is exacerbated by technology. Distance learning isn't the answer -- human contact is essential for interest [and motivation]. Larry: we should be in teacher training and curriculum development. Pat: online programs for high school; U of Wales has programs, collaboration over world. Would also be a recruitment tool.. Distance learning soon to be a commodity sold by universities--and business. Students need to be attracted by fun and cutting edge stuff. They come hear and it's boring. We could reach down to attract students so that they are "in the channel" of RPI. Why would students come here? To push the envelope (which is what the grad, not undergrads, do). Selmer wants students to have fun, be fulfilled, give them a head start for when they leave, the opportunities that grads have. Faye talked to head of library about transformation of knowledge access. There's a common interest between the problem of accessing knowledge and organizing knowledge. One of our pieces might be knowledge and education. This would be one of our pieces. Les Rubenfield key person in this area. NJ visitors in seeing RPI offer grade 13 & 14 education. Pat--even broader is education. [send email re: Leigh Star's talk]. NYNEX variation of Chiat/Day, only poorly. This is another area we could work in. It's part of design issues -- who do you consult in designing workplace? relates to unions, economics and contingent workplace. Point is that, pragmatically, we have to find areas where there is mutual and overlapping interests among engineers. Globalization is another issue. The trick is that these issues are very broad and we have to know how to touch on these. The destruction of civilization? The dark vision of the future. Dehumanizing part of technology. Jack Wilson, "This technology is going to have its way with us." It's not rape, it's seduction; we could marry the technology (we have enough power of discrimination). Faye: need a variety of scenarios for the future (how does one resist seduction?) not just the dark and utopian futures. The question has to do with democratic values--F. this debate is familiar to people in other terms. Recounting of article by Mark Helpern. Two scenarios, one hi-tech; one out in nature. [ask Faye for article; also one on virtual reality]. We've hit on essence of our contribution, but how do we package. A course on 2050 based on sci fi, course based on fundamentals (all students should be thinking about) to develop a sustained dialogue that will reappear in later courses. Essence: the charge for H&SS is to recognize the seduction in life and society and by making them apparent to provide a basis for more enlightenling & satisfying choices than if one wasn't aware of the variety of choices. Mark Shepard is interested in H&SS connection to virtual reality. SCAIT committee discusses information technology. Faye will ask for open meeting so that we can interact with Mark on virtual reality issues. http://www.rpi.edu/dept/sts/Linn/YR2050.html

Here is a copy of a proposal that I gave to Gary Judd concerning the MegaCenter a few weeks ago. Maybe it can be a starting point for our discussion. If so please distribute.

MISSION

This new degree type will be aimed at creating a new model for technological citizenship, one that integrates social, technical, and creative approaches to design, all in the service of society.

The degree programs will be organized around multi-year design projects aimed at designing specific areas of the information infrastructure. Each project will:

• have a multidisciplinary faculty;
• provide for a multi-year apprenticeship of undergraduate majors as well as multi-year involvements of graduate students and faculty;
• serve as the hub for a series of undergraduate courses offered by affiliated faculty within their home departments and making up core requirements within the programs;
• produce intellectual products (papers, books, grant proposals);
• create new research working groups, generative of cutting edge esearch.

Students should be able to complete the new degree type within an existing department whose faculty are involved in the core projects and whose career prospects and skills will be enhanced by involvement in this kind of multi-year design effort.

The number of projects to be offered at any one time will depend upon the efforts and interests of the faculty. Marketing efforts should be made to recruit students directly into these projects.

PROJECT TIMETABLE

1. Networking with current key players to develop support for the mission (or some successor mission) and identify key team players: 6-12 weeks.
2. Goal Development through a series of short, intense working meetings among key players who identify themselves through Networking, held over a short time span (e.g. 4 half-day design charettes): 2 weeks.
3. Public Commitment through a press conference and open faculty forum announcing the new degree program and pilot project, at the culmination of Goal Development.
4. Pilot Implementation though the initiation of 3-4 multi-year design projects, developed from a reconfiguration of existing initiatives: 97-98.
5. Marketing for new recruitment for class of 98-99: 97-98