VIEWS: 0 PAGES: 12 POSTED ON: 5/21/2012
Cognitive Science at UCLA: Opportunities and Recommendations A Report To: Brian Copenhaver, Provost College of Letters and Science University of California, Los Angeles By the Review Panel Members: Bennett Bertenthal, Ph. D. James L. McClelland, Ph. D. Paul Smolensky, Ph. D. May 23. 2001 Context of Review and Charge to the Review Panel Our committee met at UCLA between May 8th and May 10th. We were charged with assessing the current status of Cognitive Science at UCLA, offering insights into the future directions of this discipline, and recommending strategies and structures for elevating Cognitive Science to the level of an Organized Research Unit (ORU). During our visit we met with Provost Brian Copenhaver, Dean Fred Eiserling, Dean Pauline Yu, and Dean Scott Waugh, as well as with the Vice Chancellor for Research, Roberto Peccei. We also met with representatives from several key departments related to Cognitive Science: Computer Science, Linguistics, Philosophy, and Psychology. Additional meetings were held with other groups that are relevant to a Cognitive Science initiative and included faculty from the Brain Mapping Center, Computational Social Science, the Culture and Evolution group, and the Brain Research Institute. We were especially fortunate to meet with the past as well as current directors of the Cognitive Science Research Program (Prof. Charles Taylor, Prof, Keith Holyoak, and Prof. Phil Kellman). All of these meetings were highly informative, and provided us with a good deal of insight into past accomplishments as well as future opportunities for a Cognitive Science initiative at UCLA. Although we learned about some of the disappointments that have accompanied the quest for establishing a more stable and more comprehensive program, we were duly impressed by the energy and enthusiasm of the community as a whole. Without exception, the comments we received were constructive and collegial, and suggested that the faculty at UCLA are prepared to commit time and resources toward an interdisciplinary program that they perceive as benefiting multiple departments and research groups. The substance of our report is based on these interviews as well as on supplementary written material about current departments and programs at UCLA and strategic long-range plans written by the Deans and Provost of the College of Letters and Science. Before turning to the substance of our report, we would like to express our appreciation to our hosts for arranging a cordial and very informative visit. We found everyone extremely cooperative and helpful, and we are especially grateful to Associate Provost David Wilson for organizing our visit and demonstrating remarkable flexibility in attending to our last minute requests for changes in the schedule. If this visit was successful, then everyone involved deserves credit. The Bottom Line UCLA has an outstanding opportunity to capitalize on its existing strengths by creating a Cognitive Science Institute or Center combining features of an Organized Research Unit and Interdisciplinary Degree Program. The Institute could foster the synergistic exploitation of formal (including computational) and empirical approaches to the study of cognitive functions, with key strengths in vision, language, and reasoning. Such an Institute could become a major jewel in the crown of the University, if sufficient resources and commitments are made to ensure its success. It is important for the University to act quickly and decisively to capitalize on this outstanding opportunity. Overview In what follows we begin with a fuller discussion of the background, including a characterization of the challenges and opportunities for cognitive science, the value added by a cognitive science program, and the potentials and imperatives for UCLA. We then follow this by offering our view of the essential characteristics of cognitive science as a discipline, an expression of the particular scientific framing that we think could serve UCLA well in its efforts to differentiate its Cognitive Science effort from that of other universities, and a discussion of the relationship between Cognitive Science and other disciplines. The final section of the report provides details of our recommendations on the specific structures, strategies, and resources that should be followed to ensure success of the effort to create an outstanding Cognitive Science Institute at UCLA. Background Challenges and Opportunities for Cognitive Science in the 21st Century We live in a world that is being transformed by advances in high-speed computing, communications, and information technologies. These technologies connect people to people, people to powerful databases and instruments, and people to institutions around the world. This connectivity is enabling more people to become knowledge workers, and it is fundamentally changing how we live as well as work. We are moving rapidly toward a “knowledge society,” in which the creation, communication and interpretation of information is one of biggest challenges facing individuals and organizations alike. With each passing month, information is generated at ever increasing rates as new technologies for delivering multimedia text and data via the World Wide Web continue to proliferate. Consider, for example, how dependent we’ve become on web browsers and search engines in such a relatively short period of time. Ironically, we often find ourselves overwhelmed by the very sources of technology that were designed to make our lives less stressful and more efficient. In order to better exploit this expansive growth of information, it is necessary to develop techniques to rapidly and efficiently transform data into knowledge. The challenge is to develop more powerful methods for the transmission, representation, storage, and manipulation of information by human and artificial agents. Cognitive Science offers one of the best opportunities for addressing these challenges through the development of formal models that are designed to help us understand learning and the acquisition of knowledge. Typically, the symbolic mental representations used by cognitive scientists (e.g., connectionist models, formal rules of logic and grammar) overlap, but are nevertheless different from those methods and models used by neuroscientists and cognitive neuroscientists. The principal goal of this discipline is to develop and test formal models for understanding the ways in which humans and machines think and learn about all sorts of knowledge, ranging from common everyday knowledge to the more abstract forms of knowledge that are necessary for scientific reasoning. Cognitive scientists integrate ideas from many disciplines, such as nonlinear dynamics, statistical learning, cognitive psychology, linguistics, and neural networks to develop and test theories of mental representations and cognitive processes underlying knowledge and learning in perceptual tasks, such as visual and auditory pattern recognition, as well as in high-level tasks, such as language, mathematics, concept- formation, reasoning and problem solving. This broad-based scientific inquiry has begun to revolutionize our understanding of learning and intelligence, and the knowledge gained is especially relevant to industrial and educational applications. Value Added by a Cognitive Science Program Thus far, the interdisciplinary training of students has been the most tangible outcome of Cognitive Science programs, but there is good reason to expect that partnerships with private industry and education are likely to increase in the years to come. We are already beginning to witness the creation of valued partnerships between private industry and Cognitive Science Centers, such as the Institute for Research in Cognitive Science at the University of Pennsylvania. Likewise, there are innovative partnerships emerging between centers focusing on instructional technologies and educational activities, such as those established at Vanderbilt University and the University of California at Berkeley. Industrial applications. The applications of Cognitive Science research into how machines, animals, and humans think and solve problems is wide ranging, and include automated decision making, robotics, intelligent sensing devices, and smart instruments. Even today, computers must still be told what to do on a step-by-step basis. In the future, computers will be developed that are able to make adaptive decisions that are not entirely controlled by a program. The development of these smart machines would significantly improve productivity in science and engineering, manufacturing, and other areas. For example, the new Center for Automated Learning and Discovery at Carnegie Mellon University is developing new computer methods that use historical data to improve future decisions, such as analyzing past medical records to identify future high-risk patients, or analyzing past customer purchase records to predict future purchase behavior. This type of problem is known by various names such as data mining, machine learning, advanced data analysis and knowledge discovery from databases, but regardless of the name the discipline addressing this problem is Cognitive Science. Additional examples of the relevance of Cognitive Science research are abundant. The voluminous amounts of text and natural language that are digitally stored in databases require efficient methods for processing meaning and abstracting content. Cognitive scientists are developing highly efficient algorithms for accomplishing these functions and these developments are leading to very profitable partnerships with private industry. As one last example, consider the need for more advanced search and retrieval mechanisms to take advantage of the rapidly expanding digitial libraries, networked resources, multimedia archives, and electronic communication. Ideally, humans should be able to call upon personalized search devices to help them learn. These devices would take account of existing knowledge, search goals, and modes of learning. They would help learners explore complex, unstructured, rapidly expanding, and multimedia resources. Such devices would keep track of the search process, suggest next steps, and develop expectations about the searcher. To create these tools, both advances in machine learning and advances in human learning will be necessary. Cognitive scientists with expertise in memory processes, human knowledge representation, knowledge development, and spatial reasoning will play a crucial role in these developments. Education. The traditional concept of education as a process that takes place over a set period of years in a highly structured group setting is rapidly giving way to a far more multivariate view of education as a process of lifelong learning that is pursued in a variety of ways and places to satisfy a wide range of individual needs. The education and training demands of a technologically literate general population are enormous and will continue to grow, especially as private industry requires new and additional training for its workforce. Unions and companies are pouring more money into worker retraining than ever before. Indeed, it is projected that the typical worker of the 21st century will change jobs seven times during his or her career. Guidelines and models for retraining and re-education are needed, as are new forms of technology and intelligent systems that will play an increasingly important role in meeting these education needs. In recent years, cognitive scientists have made considerable progress in developing automated tutoring systems for the training and retraining of the workforce. The Department of Defense and private industry are investing considerable resources in the development of these systems. Automated tutoring systems that teach school children reading and math are also receiving a good deal of support by the federal government. Researchers using these systems are reporting improvements in performance that exceed gains produced with traditional forms of teaching, especially among children from low-income families. It should also be mentioned that the pedagogy currently used in K-12 education is a holdover from the Industrial Age model where teachers teach and students listen and remember, and where the needed skills are definable and students move along more-or- less in unison. Today these skills are less appropriate and have little connection with problems and contexts outside the school proper. New theories and models are needed to redirect and refocus our education system. Cognitive scientists possess the knowledge and skills to contribute significantly to this initiative, and some of their projects have been funded generously through the newly established Interagency Education Research Initiative. Potentials and Imperatives UCLA is geographically and intellectually positioned to become a national center in Cognitive Science. The intellectual infrastructure for such a center is already quite strong, and with a few strategic appointments in the College and the School of Engineering, it is highly likely that a critical mass of talent will have been assembled to establish an extremely visible and productive Institute. It is our opinion that a considerable investment in resources and space is still necessary to make this center a reality. In the remainder of this report, we will try to flesh out in more detail the nature of these investments. In considering these investments, we urge the administration to remain cognizant of the erratic history of Cognitive Science at UCLA. A Cognitive Science group began with informal weekly meetings in 1985-1986. In 1989 the Cognitive Science Research Program was formally recognized as an Organized Research Program at UCLA. By 1991, this program had obtained $4M in extramural funds and was responsible for establishing COGNET, a fiber optic ring network of over 40 advanced Apollo computer workstation. At that time a Development Plan was submitted by this Program to establish a more permanent facility and to improve infrastructure support. Unfortunately, this plan was not approved and progress toward establishing an independent Center or Institute has been discouragingly slow ever since. This lethargic response to the dynamic efforts of the Program and especially its directors has led some of the most distinguished faculty members involved with this program to withdraw or worse yet to move to other institutions with well established Cognitive Science Centers. The recent history of Cognitive Science at UCLA poses a serious impediment toward achieving the goal of developing a world-class Institute. Such an Institute requires the appointment of an internationally recognized scholar and the appointment of additional faculty with expertise in relevant areas. Currently, UCLA is experiencing problems in the recruitment and retention of relevant faculty. If the University is truly committed to the development of a Cognitive Science Center or Institute, then it is imperative for the administration to move rapidly toward the creation of such an Institute in order to harness the momentum created by recent efforts. It is in the spirit of encouraging the University to act swiftly that we have acted quickly to provide this report. Cognitive Science at UCLA What is cognitive science? Cognitive Science, the scientific study of the mind, is distinct from and complementary to neuroscience, the study of the brain. As with any biological organ, a key question concerning the brain is how it achieves its functions. For other organs, say the heart, the function is relatively clear, and can be characterized precisely via other sciences such as physics. Not so the brain. The function of the brain is to enable cognition, including perception, memory, thought, reasoning, and language. We cannot turn to physics or any other traditional branch of science for a precise characterization of these functions. A new science is needed: cognitive science. Mental functions like thought and language might seem inherently vague, and not subject to scientific study. Indeed, they are inherently abstract --- but not inherently vague, given a precise language for stating theories of abstract functions. Such a language developed in the mid-20th century: computer science. Cognitive science, the modern science of mental function, was born at this time, founded on the principle that cognition is computation --- that even abstract functions like reasoning and language can be characterized with formal precision using the language of computation, and that with such precision, exact theoretical predictions can be made and put to the empirical test. On the theoretical side, then, cognitive science is the construction of precise, computational theories of mental function (both human and artificial). These theories may be formally articulated through computer simulation, or through abstract formalisms such as logic and formal grammar. Cognitive theories frequently also employ more traditional mathematical and statistical analysis. Empirical evaluation of theories in cognitive science employs data of many types. Controlled experiments in the psychological laboratory yield precise data concerning human behavior. Corpora of naturally-occurring spoken and written language, and examples of language elicited by linguists working in the field around the globe, provide an enormous empirical testing ground for formal theories of language. And studies employing individuals with disorders of cognitive function and/or recent neuroimaging techniques produce important data which become relevant to cognitive science given additional hypotheses concerning the way cognitive theories are realized in the brain. How theories of cognition are realized in the brain is the central question of cognitive neuroscience. This emerging discipline is anchored on one end by neurobiology, which provides detailed knowledge of the physical brain; it is anchored on the other end by cognitive science, which provides detailed knowledge of mental function, and of the precise computation required to carry out these functions. Neurobiology, cognitive neuroscience, and cognitive science all have crucial --- and quite distinct --- roles to play. Such a multi-level view is at odds with the reductionist urge to believe that we need only study neurons, since ultimately all mental functions are subserved by neurons. But this is just as mistaken as to believe that we only need to study quarks, since ultimately all neural functions are subserved by quarks. Strong science is needed not only at the level of subatomic particles, but also at the higher levels of molecular and cellular neuroscience and at the still higher level of cognitive function. Understanding of cognitive function is provided by cognitive science, and only by cognitive science. Only cognitive science provides the knowledge needed to design better educational methods, better human-computer interfaces, and better systems for automatic understanding of spoken and written language. Defining Cognitive Science at UCLA A striking and distinctive attribute of UCLA is the university’s excellence in both the formal and the empirical approaches to understanding cognitive functions. We believe this unusual strength and balance affords the basis for defining Cognitive Science at UCLA as the synergistic exploitation of both formal and empirical approaches. These two approaches are the essential engines of scientific progress, in all branches of scientific inquiry. They are the vehicles that turn informal observation and intuition into new knowledge. Formal approaches give to cognitive science precisely what Euclid gave to geometry. For example, an interesting idea about the representation and processing of knowledge can only be assessed for its sufficiency by casting it in a formal framework that allows the encoding of specific content and the derivation of ensuing implications. Correspondingly, the observation of empirical facts, particularly ones predicted or not predicted by a proposed formalization, provides the essential proving ground that allows the discrimination between what cognition might be like and how it actually is. When these two approaches are combined, as they are in the best work in the field of cognitive science, they afford the essential ingredients necessary to make the study of cognition a science. Most major universities have cognitive science units of some sort, and most of these would agree that synergy of theoretical and empirical methods is key. But the degree of excellence already in place at UCLA, combined with the strong motivation within these areas of excellence to build greater synergy between them, is unique to UCLA. Furthermore, UCLA’s strength in highly formal areas of cognitive theory is a true mark of distinction among universities seeking to build in cognitive science. It is for these reasons that we propose the synergistic combination of formal and empirical approaches to be the fundamental defining characteristic of Cognitive Science at UCLA. The potential for synergy characterizes UCLA’s existing strength in three important subdomains of cognitive science: vision, language, and reasoning. Between them, these subdomains stake out what might be called the corners of the tent of cognitive science. Vision begins at the interface between physics and biology --- where the photon meets the neuron --- and extends upward into perception, spatial cognition, imagery, and representation for action. Reasoning occupies the highest ground, but one where we now understand that explicit thought and deduction coexist with implicit, intuitive processes that are equally important for insight and discovery. Language begins at the interface between the physical and the mental --- where motor programs driving oral muscles generate pressure waves and where these waves generate perceptions of speech sounds --- and extends upward to the patterning of mental sounds and words that constitute grammar, to the expression of thought, and to the interface between individuals, affording a basis for the sharing and dissemination of knowledge and for the construction of culture and society. Building further synergy in these three areas --- as well as others that are ripe for fuller development, such as memory, learning and development --- will provide an exciting target for UCLA’s Cognitive Science initiative. Existing Cognitive Science at UCLA The four disciplines traditionally seen as providing the supporting pillars of cognitive science are Computer Science, Linguistics, Philosophy, and Cognitive Psychology. UCLA has notable strength in all these areas. The core of UCLA’s strength lies in Linguistics and in Cognitive Psychology. Both are world-class departments, and furthermore, the strengths of each connect solidly to cognitive science. Both departments have unfortunately lost key senior faculty in recent years. But we are confident that the existing strength of these departments, if combined with a major initiative in Cognitive Science, will make it possible to attract other first-rate scientists, and to increase the synergy that both departments see as a high priority. Philosophy too is a highly ranked department; like the rest of this department, the faculty relevant to cognitive science are few but strong. Computer Science, the weakest of these units, nonetheless has a number of excellent faculty in both vision and reasoning, and (together with Electrical Engineering’s speech lab), a base for building strength in computational linguistics. There are several universities with strong programs in some but not all of these contributing disciplines, and there may even be one or two where all of these disciplines are well represented. But in several of the universities where the contributing disciplines are strong, the spirit of collaboration needed to bring them together in a truly integrated fashion is lacking. The crucial element favoring UCLA is its cooperative culture, and the deep (and long-standing) desire of faculty to bring the campus together to build an integrated cognitive science community. (For comparisons of UCLA with other cognitive science units in the country, see Appendix A.) Outside the core disciplines, UCLA has strength in a number of allied disciplines. Strong formal research on vision is underway or planned in both Mathematics and Statistics. The Computation in the Social Sciences group spanning anthropology, sociology and political science provides a unique social-level counterpart of the computational modeling at the individual level conducted in cognitive science, and an intriguing connection to research on the evolution of mind, culture, and language. Finally, a range of strengths within neurobiology, both in Letters and Science and in Medicine, provide a solid interface between cognitive science and the allied disciplines within neuroscience. A resource of particularly important potential value to cognitive science at UCLA is the Brain Mapping Center. Locating Cognitive Science within UCLA The departments housing the core sub-disciplines of cognitive science span the Division of Humanities (Linguistics, Philosophy), the Division of Life Sciences (Psychology), and the College of Engineering (Computer Science). The allied units involve in addition the Division of Physical Sciences (Statistics, Mathematics), the Division of Social Sciences (Anthropology, Sociology, Political Science), and the College of Medicine (Neurology et al.). Cognitive Science thus provides a tremendous opportunity for campus-wide synergy among a truly impressive constellation of units. For the same reason, it also clearly poses a significant institutional challenge: finding a way of ensuring that a Cognitive Science unit has sufficient identity, strength, and resources in and of itself to ensure that its success does not depend crucially on the prolonged, consistent donation of resources by multiple Departments, Divisions and even Colleges. This institutional challenge has rarely been successfully met by universities seeking to develop cognitive science, but we are extremely optimistic that UCLA will succeed because of the remarkable culture of cooperation that we have consistently perceived. A related challenge for Cognitive Science at UCLA will be to maintain sufficient focus amidst this broad array of related strengths. The focus must be to fully engage the existing strengths within Linguistics and Cognitive Psychology, to increase their synergy, and to significantly expand the strength in computation, either within Computer Science, within other Departments, or within a Cognitive Science unit itself. If possible, bridging to Philosophy would also be desirable. Increasing synergy between linguistics, cognitive psychology, computation, and possibly philosophy will require hiring new bridging faculty, in areas including, but not limited to, psycholinguistics, speech, computational linguistics, and several areas of computational cognitive modeling. Increasing synergy between the core departments will also require constructing new infrastructure to serve all Cognitive Science faculty, regardless of their departmental affiliation (e.g., experimental and computer laboratories and personnel required to support them) . Other important resources for increasing synergy at UCLA are discussed below in the context of our recommended course of action. Relation to neuroscience. We have stressed that Cognitive Science represents a distinct and important level of analysis, and it might be said that it exists as a science placed at the crucial interface between the neural and biological sciences on the one hand and the social sciences on the other. It will be very important for the success of Cognitive Science at UCLA to adopt exactly the right stance with respect to the linkages with research at these other levels. It is particularly important to be clear about the relation between Cognitive Science and Neuroscience, because of the growing strength and importance of Neuroscience in general and Cognitive Neuroscience specifically at UCLA and throughout the worldwide scientific community. In our view, it is crucial to consider Cognitive Science and Neuroscience as distinct and complementary disciplines, ones that use neuroscience research methods for complementary purposes. It is likely that researchers who study individuals with cognitive impairments and/or who rely on functional imaging or other non-invasive brain monitoring methods will be important participants in Cognitive Science. At the same time it is crucial to understand that the effort to use these methods to address questions at the cognitive level is not the same as the effort to address the biological underpinnings of cognition per se. The most appropriate candidates for faculty positions in Cognitive Science will be those whose work clearly addresses the functional questions using neuroscience research methods. Faculty with such an orientation would be good candidates for appointments in Cognitive Science. Such appointments might be joint appointments with psychology or linguistics, and/or between Cognitive Science and units such as the Brain Mapping Center, the Brain Research Institute, the department of Neurology, and the Neuropsychiatric Institute. Structures, Strategies, and Resources Formative Considerations Four considerations have played a key role in shaping our thinking about the structures, strategies, and resources necessary to create a world class initiative in Cognitive Science at UCLA. First, the scale of the commitment must be sufficient to create a self-sustaining nucleus of scientific activity, yet not so large as to prevent a strong overall sense of integration. Second, the deployment of these resources must be make in a way that maintains and strengthens the key allied units at the University. Third, the form of the commitment must be sufficiently explicit and credible to allay the doubts of those who have been around long enough to see their hopes raised with general promises only to see them dashed by the disappearance of key players and anticipated future funds. Fourth, the structure created must be sufficiently solid [robust?] to ensure its viability in the face of the fact that Cognitive Science necessarily spans important administrative boundaries within the university. Specific Recommendations Institute. We advocate the creation of a scientific and educational unit that combines characteristics of an ORU and an IDP, and has sufficient independent status to be perceived as a distinct and viable focal point for active programs of research and teaching. Such a unit could be called either a Center or an Institute. Here we call it the Cognitive Science Institute, without presuming that this would necessarily be its actual, formal name. Director and advisory committee. The Institute will need a Director of recognized international stature, and it is clear to us that an international search is needed to identify the best possible candidate. That said, we do not by any means intend to imply that the right candidate could not emerge from UCLA's existing faculty. The Director should be recruited and supported by an internal advisory committee of 5-8 leading scientists from the key allied disciplines to provide both wisdom and energy as well as necessary interfacing to the key allied units. It is anticipated that some members of this committee might end up as central participants in the Institute, while others will fade into the background as new faculty are hired into the Center. We feel it would be wrong to constrain the specific area or home disciplinary affiliation of the Director, but rather urge that the committee seek an individual who respects and is respected by both the empirical and formal segments of the existing UCLA community. Faculty. We propose that 10 additional Faculty FTE's be placed under the Director's control. It is expected that almost all of these faculty will be placed in joint appointments with existing departments, and that for the most part they will be viewed as serving as participants in and bridges between the Center and the home department. As such the actual formulation and implementation of each search will require a dialog between the Director and the Head of the relevant allied department, and the actual search committee will necessarily include individuals from both units. Correspondingly we expect that the evaluation of joint appointees will occur in a single integrated process grounded within the home department and incorporating institute as well as departmental representatives. It is also expected that the Institute will need to make a small number of key appointments that do not fit within the boundaries of any existing Center or Department. We cannot presume to specify the exact institutional mechanisms that would be used for such appointments, but we can suggest how their quality and suitability might be evaluated. This could be done by a committee consisting of the Director and those Faculty Members of the Institute and of the Advisory Committee who hold appropriate rank, who would then report the result of their deliberations to the dean presiding over the Institute. Precedent exists for such a procedure at least at some other Universities. Over and above the core faculty who would be recruited by and for the Cognitive Science Institute, there are several departments in the college and elsewhere in the university with agendas that could be strengthened by the presence of a strong Cognitive Science Institute. We believe the university would be well-served to offer some FTE for recruitments of additional faculty in these units, with the understanding that such recruitments would be undertaken without tapping the resources of the Institute, but with its cooperation to help ensure the success of the recruitment effort. Faculty time for administration and interfacing. An interdisciplinary institute of the sort we envision here requires real time and energy over and above that required of a free-standing academic unit. In recognition of this, it is crucial that release time for administration and interfacing be built into the expected activities of the Director and other Institute Faculty. The equivalent of 200% of a faculty FTE should be specifically earmarked for such activities. It is further understood that the teaching activities of the faculty recruited jointly would serve the needs of the department and the institute in way that is proportionate and where possible synergistic. Educational programs. Graduate and undergraduate education are both key missions of the university and key activities that help to create a sense of shared mission for any academic unit. It is our expectation that the Institute will sponsor an Undergraduate Major in Cognitive Science, building on and superceding the existing major of that name administered by the Department of Psychology. Regarding the graduate program, a range of alternative approaches might be considered. One of the possibilities appears to resonate well with all parties with whom we have discussed the matter. In this approach, graduate students would be recruited jointly by the Institute and allied Ph.D. granting programs. Students so recruited would enter both the allied Ph. D. program and the Cognitive Science Program, and would receive their Ph. D. from the home program with an added certificate from Cognitive Science. Such students would function at their level in a way that parallels the role of the faculty, serving as participants in and links between the Institute and the home department. The content of the Cognitive Science Program would be determined by the faculty of the Institute, and would likely involve requirements that would correspond to a year's worth of formal education. In support of this year's worth of effort, the Center would be expected to contribute a year's worth of funding. Such an approach has several advantages, including the maintenance of links with allied units and the conferring of a degree in a recognized scientific discipline. Use of this approach initially would not preclude the eventual development of a Ph. D. in Cognitive Science, should the evolution of the Institute warrant it. Space as a focal point. An institute that will meet the needs of the new recruits and of existing faculty who are anxious to participate and contribute will need its own physical space. 16,000 net square feet (exclusive of corridors etc) is just sufficient to allow the Institute to provide a sufficient venue for its scientific and educational programs. This space should be based as close as possible to Psychology and Linguistics, so as to maximize the benefit from and to these important allied units. Start up funding. Significant block funding to meet the needs for faculty startup and program support must be set aside up front to ensure the success of the Center, and the Director must be given discretionary control over the use of these funds, subject to oversight at the Dean level. Nothing less than $7.5 Million would be sufficient to meet programmatic and faculty startup needs for an initial five-year period, and to provide the Director with fungible resources to pursue exciting research opportunities. Supplementation of this figure for housing assistance will be necessary to make it possible to succeed in faculty recruitment. Ongoing support. We expect that ongoing support from the university would take the form of funding of the FTE's of the Director and the 10 Institute faculty, plus an additional irreducible minimum of $275,000 per year for support staff and operating expenses. It should be understood that the actual cost of supporting the Center's activities would be far higher than this, but would be covered for the most part by grants from extramural sources, especially NSF, NIH, DOD, and other government and private sources. Finally we note that the university should expect a typical level of faculty turn- over in the Institute, and so should expect to incur additional startup costs for the hiring of replacements.
Pages to are hidden for
"Cognitive Science at UCLA:"Please download to view full document