*Concerns of Young Mathematicians* Volume 2 Issue 10 March 16, 1994 An electronically distributed digest for discussions of the issues of concern to mathematicians at the beginning of their careers. PLEASE FORWARD TO ANY POTENTIALLY INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS Please, direct submissions and questions to Matthew Hudelson hudelson@math.washington.edu , editor for the month of March. Next issue: March 23 To subscribe: Send mail to Charles Yeomans at cyeomans@s.ms.uky.edu Back issues and other information are available via anonymous FTP to ftp.ms.uky.edu, in pub3/mailing.lists/ymn-list. Table of Contents Item # Title ------ ----- 1 Editor's Notes 2 Suggestion for Prospective Hirees: Be Prepared to Teach a Class By Dr. Fred Worth 3 An Unexplained Firing Decision and its Consequences By Kevin Madigan 4 A Discussion on Unfair Employment Practices and the Role of the AMS By Mark Winstead 5 A Perspective on the Division of Mathematical Sciences at NSF By Robert Molzon 6 Interdepartmental Evaluation of Teaching? By Leonard VanWyk 7 CoProf Open Forum on Employment Issues at Eastern Sectional Meeting By James W. Maxwell 8 Improvements for Job Announcements and Application Filing By Charles Mannix 9 Closing Credits _______________________________________________________________ Item #1 Editor's Notes: Greetings again from the March editor for the *Concerns of Young Mathematicians*. I want to apologize for any delays in getting the last issue out to everyone. We are trying to work out a backup distribution route in the event of foul weather or computer difficulties. I received seven submissions this week for which I am quite grate- ful. I'm certain that this edition will be quite thought-provoking for you. Kevin Madigan's article on (Item 3) generated quite a bit of discussion among the YMN administrators and also prompted Mark Winstead to write a companion piece (Item 4). The administrators of the YMN and I would like to hear your suggestions, both for the CoYM and for the network in general. Also, if you would like to volunteer to edit the CoYM for a month, we especially would like to hear from you. Many thanks, Matthew Hudelson, March Editor for CoYM hudelson@math.washington.edu _______________________________________________________________ Item #2 Suggestion for Prospective Hirees: Be Prepared to Teach a Class By Dr. Fred Worth worthf@holly.hsu.edu Interview Suggestion If you are applying to teach at a school where the main emphasis is teaching you will likely be asked to teach an actual class. It would appear obvious (but apparently isn't) that you should do the very best you can to do an exceptional job during that class. Three years ago, when I was interviewing, I taught a class. I had taught the material before so it was familiar to me. But I still worked very hard to prepare for it so I would not have to frequently look at notes and so it would be clear that I knew what I was doing. After the class I had several students tell me I had done a very good job teaching. A couple of the faculty observing said the same thing. The next day I got a call offering the job. I believe the work at teaching well paid off. A couple of things to consider. 1.) When you are told you are going to teach be sure to find out as specifically as possible what it is you are going to teach. Find out what book you are going to use. 2.) Don't stray very far from the text. Students often don't like that and, remember, it is someone else's class. 3.) Be prepared for questions. I was not told to ask for questions on homework but I had several students ask questions during the lecture and some were not easy questions. 4.) Prepare ahead of time. If you have taught the material before you know what you need to do. If you haven't, get a friend or two to listen to your lecture. Encourage them to be honest with you. Last year I got to participate in this process from the faculty end. We had three people come in. Two did an excellent job teaching and the other did a poor job. Afterwards no one even bothered to look at the credentials (which were excellent) of the candidate who taught poorly. 5.) Be yourself during the lecture. If you try to be someone else you will come off as fake. I like to use humor (or at least what I consider humor) when I teach. So when I was doing my interview lecture I did the same thing. The class obviously enjoyed it and I noticed the observing faculty laugh, too (fortunately at the times I intended). 6.) If you don't want to work at a teaching-emphasis school, that will very likely come out in your presentation. There are many other suggestions which could be made but these can help a lot. Dr. Fred Worth Henderson State University Box 7783 (501) 246-5511 Ext. 3230 Arkadelphia AR 71999-0001 worthf@holly.hsu.edu _______________________________________________________________ Item #3 An Unexplained Firing Decision and its Consequences By Kevin Madigan madigan@math.lamar.edu (Note: The original version of this article was revised at the request of the YMN administrators, who wanted certain names removed. I will be happy to provide further particulars. - KM) Hello, my name is Kevin Madigan, and I am a professor of Mathematics. On Tues, March 1, 1994, the Dean of the College of Engineering, Lamar University, Beaumont, TX informed me that my tenure track job would cease to exist at the end of this academic year. This was my first year in this position, and I was recently given a "High Merit" rating on my faculty evaluation (1/26/94). He made it clear to me that my firing is not based on performance, but is due to budgetary problems. He also terminated a professor of Computer Science. One tenure track professor in another college (the Department of Fine Arts) was fired. There are 5 first year t.t. faculty in the College of Engineering, only 2 of which have been fired. (One of those not let go was hired in January of 1994, while we were hired in August, 1993). When asked (3/2/94) to explain why only two were fired, and how he decided which two to fire, the dean refused to do so. One should also note that there are two first year t.t. faculty in the Department of Comp. Sci., and we still have not been given an explanation as to how the dean decided which of the two from that particular department would be fired. The chair of Comp. Sci. refused to pick between the two, leaving the decision to the dean. The Department of Mathematics has now requested a meeting with the Executive Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs asking for an explanation, pointing out that none is forthcoming from the dean. I have received information (from more than one source) which supports the conclusion that the decision to terminate (needed) quality young TENURE TRACK faculty members was made in less that one week. Most of the other deans here found ways to make budget cuts without firing faculty members. The chairs of Math and Computer Science have strenuously objected to the terminations. The Math Dept. was already short one faculty member, and trying to get clearance to hire someone. With my departure, the dept. is short two faculty members, and must now scramble to cover 7 sections in the fall. I wish to stress the following: Tenure track contracts at Lamar University - Beaumont are not tenure track in the generally accepted sense of the term. If there are sudden budget problems, you may be fired. It is important to note that only 3 first year t.t. faculty were laid off, NOT ALL OF THEM. The point has been stressed that these decisions were not based on performance. Explanations as to how these decisions were made have been repeatedly requested by the departments involved (and by several members of other departments at a university faculty meeting with the president on 3/07/94). I have been treated very shabbily. I believe that my case is of interest to the academic community, because it is precisely the type of treatment I have received which has been loudly condemned by many professional academic organizations (the American Mathematical Society, for example). And, of course, I need a job. Thank you for reading. Kevin Madigan madigan@math.lamar.edu PO Box 10047 Department of Mathematics Lamar University Beaumont, TX 77710 _______________________________________________________________ Item #4 A Discussion on Unfair Hiring Practices and the Role of the AMS By Mark Winstead winstead@euclid.ucsd.edu Elsewhere in the issue (Item #3, - ed.), you will find an article by Kevin Madigan and his wrongful dismissal from Lamar University. We on the editorial board "burned the wires" discussing his story and what stance to take on it, and, as Kevin hinted at, whether or not to even print his article. Since we often don't have the resources to verify details of the submissions that come, we naturally are wary of some articles. Most articles to date have had facts which are easily verified or have been pure opinion pieces of the author. Since Kevin's article raises certain questions, many of us on CYM's editorial board have sought to bring you the answers. I have found out what the AMS does in such situations, offer some other things it could be doing, and then present my argument (my opinion, not necessarily anyone else's) of why the status quo almost the right thing to be doing. *My understanding of the AMS stance: The AMS has a standing committee called the Committee on Academic Freedom, Tenure, and Employment Security (CAFTES). It primarily works by trying to mediate disputes. CAFTES does not get involved until a member has exhausted the internal mechanisms at her/his school. The view is that the AMS has no legal standing to be involved in employment matters between a member and the member's employer. I should mention that there is another outside organization, the American Association of University Professors, which has in the past censured institutions and attempted to make faculty recruitment difficult for schools who have "wrongly treated" professors. *What the AMS might do: Having thought it through and discussed it with others, about the only things the AMS could do is not allow institutions to host AMS events and not accept job advertisements from such institutions which engage in reprehensible activities. *Why the AMS shouldn't do what it might do: It would probably involve a change of the AMS by-laws, which would involve a potential battle both to get the change on the ballot and to get it passed. There would be much opposition to such a change, because I believe it opens a Pandora's Box. If the AMS tries to get involved in the hiring and employment practices of its members' schools, where do we draw the line? Do we next deny state schools advertisement space in the EIMS because their state prohibits laws granting protection to homosexuals? because the school has historically discriminated against minorities? etc. Additionally, the adopting such tactics could result in the AMS involved in costly legal battles. What the AMS should do: Educate its members. Among the material it provides to help job seekers should be a section on things a job candidate should ask. Many have been referred to on the pages of CYM before. I suggest that you also ask if any tenure track faculty has ever been terminated for reasons other than failing to achieve tenure or for reasons that would have gotten a tenured professor fired. _______________________________________________________________ Item #5 A Perspective on the Division of Mathematical Sciences at NSF By Robert Molzon Submitted by Curtis Bennett cbennet@andy.bgsu.edu An article I requested long ago has been sent in. It is on NSF grants. (Yea!) It is in TeX-able form, and unfortunately, I don't have all the files to double check its TeX format. However, I hope that our membership will be able to translate to English (or whatever language), or successfully TeX (LaTeX ?) it out. I am appending the article. Curt \documentstyle[12pt,qqaajart]{article} %%%%%%%%%%%% \lhead{Left Header}\rhead{Right Header} \cfoot{\thepage} \underhead \tighttoc \numberbysection \thispagestyle{plain} \newcommand{\symnote}[2]{\symbolnote{#1}{#2}} \newtheorem{theorem}{\sf Theorem} \newtheorem{lemma}{\sf Lemma} \input tcilatex \QQQ{Language}{ American English } \begin{document} \author{Robert Molzon} \title{A Perspective on the Division of Mathematical Sciences at NSF } \maketitle \section{ Introduction} I would like to try to provide some information about the NSF that might be useful to recent PhDs in the mathematical sciences. I would also like to provide my perspective on the direction NSF might take in the near future in order to address some of the difficulties faced by the mathematical community and recent PhDs in particular. I should first mention the article written by two former Program Directors, B. E. Trumbo and Russ Walker which appeared in the September 1990 issue of the Notices of the American Mathematical Society (vol. 37, pp. 838-843). Although written a few years ago, the information is still quite relevant and should provide a good guide to preparing a proposal. Before writing a proposal for submission to the NSF I certainly suggest reading their article in order to obtain a basic understanding of the award process. In this article, I shall first present a brief outline of the organization of the Division of Mathematical Sciences and of some ways in which mathematicians might improve communication with the NSF. The importance of getting to know Program Directors is stressed in the article by Trumbo and Walker, and I endorse what they say. I also suggest a new approach to support of research that could be taken by the community. Although the approach I present is not completely new since several proposals of the type I mention below have been funded, I believe the approach will be new to most people. \section{Organization} The Division of Mathematical Sciences (DMS) is one of the divisions in the Mathematical and Physical Sciences Directorate at NSF. The head administrator of DMS, the Division Director, is currently Fred Wan of the University of Washington. The DMS is broken up by area of research into ten programs. The major disciplinary programs such as Geometric Analysis are administered by one or two Program Directors who have primary responsibility for recommending awards within the program. The Special Projects Program is primarily responsible for proposals for large group projects such as institutes and conferences. In addition to the disciplinary programs, DMS participates in a number of initiatives which support researchers in fields related to the initiative. The High Performance Computing Initiative is an example. Funds earmarked for the initiatives can be transferred into a Program in order to support work on a project which has a component closely related to the initiative. How directly related a project must be to an initiative in order to qualify for support by initiative funds was never very clear while I was a Program Director. If one is working in an area which might be related to one of the current initiatives, it would certainly be worthwhile contacting a Program Director for guidance in writing a proposal so that the link to the initiative is clear. Approximately one half of the Program Directors are ''rotators'' and one half are permanent NSF staff. The ''rotators'' serve one or two years and continue to hold their university appointments during their tenure at NSF. It has generally been very difficult for NSF to entice mathematicians into serving at the NSF for one or two years - a problem that seems to be unique to mathematics as other sciences do not have this difficulty. Program Directors do have a fair degree of autonomy within the constraints of general Division and NSF policy. That autonomy is limited to the individual programs which they direct and of course is constrained by budgets and the established format of the NSF award system. Trying to make substantive changes in the system proved to be a daunting task - even in cases when a large majority of the Program Directors felt change was necessary. \section{Communication between the Mathematical Community and the DMS} A very large percentage of the Program Directors' time is spent communicating with the mathematical community. Much of this is routine and involves passing on information and answering queries about the status of proposals. As Trumbo and Walker point out in their article, it can be very helpful to contact a Program Director at NSF for assistance in preparing a proposal. They can provide first hand information which may not be contained in the standard publications of NSF and might not be generally available to grants officers at a university. It also provides an opportunity to talk in an informal way with the Program Director and simply establish some personal contact. Your department can also invite a Program Director to give a colloquium. This allows a large number of people at your university a chance to get to know the person making the decisions on research proposals. Surprisingly very few departments make this a regular practice. I believe the ones that do have really benefited - both in terms of obtaining information on proposal writing and in getting their concerns across to the Program Director. In general, the Program Directors have a great deal of sympathy for the problems faced by mathematicians with respect to grants. It really does help them to know what your problems are and it especially helps to know that they have your support when they are trying to make changes within a large bureaucracy. The personal contact that comes from a visit to a campus is beneficial to the Program Director as well as the Department, and they will make every effort to make the trip. Because of the heavy work load associated with writing recommendations on proposals in the Spring, late Summer or Fall is the best time for an invitation. The cost of these visits must (by NSF rules) be assumed by the government; hence, even departments with zero colloquium budget can afford it. \section{Non-traditional Proposals} Almost all proposals submitted to the disciplinary programs follow a single format in their request for funds. The traditional proposal is submitted on behalf of one or two principal investigators and the request for funds follows the pattern of two months of summer salary support, travel funds, and perhaps funds for miscellaneous items such as page charges and telephone calls. A number of proposals I handled as Program Director had six or seven principal investigators, but the breakup of the budget request followed the traditional format. With the implementation of some form of ''flat rate'' funding this format may have changed slightly, but the most significant direct cost remains summer salary. With increased pressure on program funds due to relatively small or no increase in program budgets, more people have begun to question the traditional NSF award in mathematics. A recent Forum article (vol. 41, February 1994) in the Notices of the AMS, ''Some thoughts on the funding of mathematics'', by William Yslas Velez, former Program Director of the Algebra and Number Theory Program, summarizes some of the different points of view that have been taken by various factions in the debate. Virtually all of the proposals submitted to the disciplinary programs, with the exception of those for support of conferences, involve research which is carried out over twelve months, not two summer months, and hence the common assertion that a traditional NSF award in mathematics is meant to fully fund a research project is certainly questionable. Keeping this in mind, it might be useful to ask what type of support is most necessary to carry out a research project. Since traditional NSF awards fund at best only a very small percentage of any research project, perhaps emphasis on the most necessary items will allow mathematicians to write proposals which are attractive to NSF because they set priorities and present cost effective alternatives to traditional proposals. Small travel grants have frequently been proposed as a means of providing some much needed support to individuals who have strong active research programs, and whose most pressing need is travel to work with colleagues or attend conferences. Because of the administrative burden of processing proposals and awards, this is not a cost effective way of supporting research. This should not mean however that mathematicians cannot set priorities in seeking research support; it simply means that proposals must present a cost effective approach to NSF. One point which seems to have been missed almost entirely by the mathematical community is that the NSF does not require that proposals follow the traditional funding pattern - in fact NSF guidelines are quite flexible in setting proposal format. The most important point I would like to make in this article is that one is not locked into the traditional approach. As an alternative to the traditional approach to funding I would suggest that several individuals working in closely related fields at a particular university write a joint proposal that details how funds for travel, colloquium speakers, and student support would help their research program. For example, four or five mathematicians in a department working in the general area of differential geometry might be holding joint seminars and be interested in inviting visitors to speak in a colloquium. They might also be teaching related courses which are attended by graduate students interested in geometry. I believe such a group which had a strong research program could write a very attractive proposal for support of visitors, students, and travel. A joint proposal by a group SHOULD NOT look like four or five individual proposals stapled together. Rather the proposal should emphasize the group activities, and how support of the group will benefit a research program. Of course individual research accomplishments and goals should be described, but the benefit of having strong group interaction should be emphasized. When I encouraged group proposals, I was asked if the individuals must all be in one field of mathematics or writing joint papers. I believe the proposal would be stronger if the individuals could show common interests and good communication between members of the group. This certainly does not mean the individuals must all be in on field of mathematics. In fact, if one could show common interests among individuals in diverse areas this might well be viewed as a strong point - especially in light of the current emphasis on interdisciplinary work. One potential difficulty of group proposals of this type is the possibility of flooding DMS Programs with proposals. This would place a very serious burden on a staff that already has the highest proposal load in the NSF. I believe it would be much easier to convince a Program Director that one has a serious need for support by submitting one well written and thought out proposal than by sending in multiple proposals. The groups for which I recommended funding were quite conscientious about this point. Finally, I would emphasize once more the importance of contacting the appropriate Program Director for information if you believe you could write a strong group proposal. Different Program Directors may well have different ideas on points to stress for proposals of this type. \section{Summary} With the increased difficulty of obtaining even modest support for outstanding research projects in mathematics, many in the mathematical community may have adopted a rather resigned attitude with regard to NSF support. In this short note, I hope I have outlined a possible alternative to the standard manner of seeking NSF support. If this approach is to be successful, it will require good communication between the mathematical community and the Division of Mathematical Sciences at NSF. The community can take a step in the communication process by getting to know the Program Directors and by writing to the administration at NSF. I would like to thank the Young Mathematicians' Network for the opportunity to present my ideas on a direction that the NSF and the mathematical community should seriously consider in the search for a way to address the current crises in research support for mathematics. \end{document} _______________________________________________________________ Item #6 Interdepartmental Evaluation of Teaching? By Leonard VanWyk vanwyk@cmpsci.suffolk.edu Evaluating teaching performance is a subjective, murky business. The two most common techniques used are student evaluations and some form of mentor review, usually by the Chair of the department. Both of these evaluation methods glean certain information about the instructor, but both have their weaknesses as well. While student evaluations can give valuable information about the students' perspective, they can easily degenerate into superficial popularity contests. On the other hand, an evaluation from the Chair of the department can provide insightful suggestions from a more experienced instructor, but the Chair's judgement is inherently biased due to his/her own experience in teaching the same material. Thus each of these two methods yields certain information, and together these two perspectives paint a rough, limited picture of the instructor's teaching ability and style. In order to sharpen this picture somewhat, why not introduce the concept of an external review by a faculty member outside of the department? This person, who could be chosen from any field for the evaluation of a lower-level course, would sit in for a class or two, similar to the Chair of the department. This type of evaluation provides the insight of an individual who knows something about teaching techniques in general, but little or nothing about the particular material; in some respects, this would be the most informative of the three types of evaluation discussed here. This third type of review is not without its problems. It would require cooperation between departments -- a BIG problem at some schools -- as well as a willingness for instructors to accept suggestions from, *gulp*, outsiders. However, it would be relatively simple to implement and quantify compared to, say, measuring the success rate of the instructor's students in subsequent related classes. The fact remains that teaching ability is not accurately measured, even though evaluating this ability with the greatest possible degree of precision should be a priority for many institutions, given the weight that it can carry in the tenure decision. _______________________________________________________________ Item #7 CoProf Open Forum on Employment Issues at Eastern Sectional Meeting By James W. Maxwell jwm@math.ams.org The AMS Committee on the Profession (CoProf) will sponsor an open forum on issues related to the employment of mathematicians at the AMS Eastern Sectional Meeting at Polytechnic University, Brooklyn, NY, on April 9, 1994. The forum will run from 2:30-4:00 in the Auditorium, Rodgers Hall. The main purpose of the forum is to foster dialog and seek input from the community of mathematical scientists on the role that the AMS can take to improve employment opportunities in the mathematical sciences. Meeting participants will be given the opportunity to speak, and are welcome to provide written and oral testimony to support CoProf's efforts in this area. All members of the mathematics community, including those making oral presentations at the forum, are encouraged to contribute written statements to CoProf. CoProf is currently reviewing actions that can be taken to extend the implementation of recommendations made in 1992 by the AMS Task Force on Employment. Contributors to the forum and others providing written statements are encouraged to consider those recommendations. The full text of "Employment and the U.S. Mathematics Doctorate: Report of the AMS Task Force on Employment, July 1992" is available on e-MATH GOPHER in the category "General Information of Interest to Mathematicians." Any member of the mathematics community who wishes to make an oral presentation is asked to notify James W. Maxwell at the AMS (jwm@math.ams.org) before March 30, 1994. Oral presentations should be limited to 5 minutes in order to afford opportunities for broad participation. Priority for oral presentations will be given to meeting participants who notify CoProf in advance, though all participants will be accommodated as time permits. Written contributions should be submitted by March 30. Earlier contributions will facilitate the committee's review of the Employment Task Force's recommendations. Written statements can be sent by electronic mail to emp-forum@math.ams.org or mailed to CoProf Subcommittee on Employment Issues, Attn: Diane Mack, American Mathematical Society, P.O. Box 6248, Providence, RI 02940. CoProf anticipates sponsoring forums at other regional meetings as the need and opportunity arise. *************************************************************************** * * * Dr. James W. Maxwell Phone: 401-455-4101 * * Associate Executive Director FAX: 401-455-4004 * * Professional Programs & Services e-mail: jwm@math.ams.org * * American Mathematical Society * * * *************************************************************************** _______________________________________________________________ Item #8 Improvements for Job Announcements and Application Filing By Charles Mannix mannix@amath.washington.edu There are many things that would improve the current situation in the job market. These range from major institutional reforms to a dramatic revision of the hiring process. However, every so often, there are real ways to make small but significant steps that are thoughtful, inexpensive, and so very easy to implement. Here are two: JOB ANNOUNCEMENTS Improvement: Whenever practical, word job announcements to more specifically state the qualifications of the ideal candidate. Reason: A more narrowly defined description might dramatically cut into the 500, 600, and 700 applications received to a national posting. Discussion: A typical posting says: Opening for Tenure Track Mathematician starting Sept 1994 .... Such a statement attracts and is relevant to over half the graduating class. Instead, pay the incremental price in advertising lines to state something like: Opening for Tenure Track Mathematician starting Sept 1994 .... The ideal candidate should have three years teaching experience. Our ideal applicant could come from two types of backgrounds. The first is in algebraic topology. The second is in numerical analysis with a strong interest in and publications in stiff systems of ordinary differential equations. Knowledge and ability to run a UNIX computer teaching lab is a strong plus. The extra cost in verbiage for a paid ad would more than be recovered in the difference between reviewing and processing 600 applications or 30. Then the hiring committee could concentrate on precisely those people they REALLY wanted in the first place. FILING OF OLD APPLICATIONS Improvement: Adopt the wise and smart practice of Texas A&M University at Corpus Christi. A candidate from this year can reapply next season by a simple letter. This involves merely saving the completed applications from 1994 until May of 1995 (or whatever is the next year) in anticipation that many of the same people will be reapplying for new jobs listings. When sending out the "so sorry" letters state this is your policy --- especially to the candidates the hiring committee might want to encourage to reapply next year. Reason: Good sense, economy, and humanity. The applicant and his references are spared the hassle of assembling yet another application packet. All that is required is a letter in the following year stating that an individual would like his/her file reopened for consideration of new job posting # 1234. The application letter could also contain any updates and revisions. The entire thing would be one envelope and a couple of pages. At the receiving end, the department's staff is not opening thousands of envelopes and filing transcripts, letters of recommendation, statements of teaching intent, etc. that are identical or nearly identical to what was thrown out last year. The labor saved and the opportunity to do more productive tasks should more than offset the cost of a filing cabinet. Discussion: I would like to be on record as nominating the staff at A&M for to hallowed sainthood in the Mathematician's Heaven. (Even if their letter stated they did not select me for the current job.) It is so satisfying to see SOMEBODY DO SOMETHING, even in a small way, that makes the current hiring process more sensible, efficient, and humane. Widespread adoption of these two practices would certainly not be a cure of the fundamental problems in the economy, but I suggest that they would make life just a little easier both for the applicant and the hiring committee. C. E. Mannix _______________________________________________________________ Item #9 Closing Credits The Young Mathematicians' Network is administered by: Charles Yeomans cyeomans@s.ms.uky.edu Mark Winstead winstead@euclid.ucsd.edu Vic Perera vperera@silver.ucs.indiana.edu Franklin Mendivil mendivil@math.gatech.edu Stephen Kennedy kennedy@stolaf.edu Kalin Godev kalin@math.psu.edu Neil Calkin calkin@math.gatech.edu Curtis Bennett cbennet@andy.bgsu.edu Jeff Adams adams@bright.uoregon.edu Edward Aboufadel aboufade@scus1.ctstateu.edu Frank Arlinghaus frank@math.ysu.edu Matt Hudelson hudelson@math.washington.edu ____________________________________________________________________________ End of Journal