Conclusions

UC Davis should build on existing strengths. The CS&E Initiative should focus on people with strong connections to a diverse range of application domains. Many of these will relate to the representation, analysis, and exploitation of large data sets, not necessarily being numerical data. The focus cannot be exclusively on numerical computation or scientific computing. It is desirable to foster stronger connections between CS&E faculty and areas which have not traditionally exploited computational methods to the degree that the physical and, particularly, the engineering sciences have. UC Davis should build the future development of CS&E on existing strengths, considering computational needs and evolving opportunities on campus, likely with a substantial emphasis on the biological sciences. One of our goals should be to quickly become distinguished nationally in CS&E. The CS&E Initiative should initially build on and expand traditionally strong CS&E programs. The campus should identify existing strong CS&E programs on campus and expand these first. This would allow UC Davis to achieve true national and international excellence in a few of its already strong CS&E fields. The CS&E Initiative should emphasize high-quality research. The CS&E Initiative should focus on people who develop, analyze, and apply computational methods for applications. These people should have close connections to at least one application. High-quality research should be the desired outcome of expansion and investing in CS&E. CS&E faculty should qualify for joint appointments. To establish critical mass and coherency and to attract faculty, students, and funding, the Initiative should place the majority of current and new faculty in a few primary CS&E units. To emphasize the interdisciplinary nature of CS&E most new faculty hires should qualify for joint appointments. The creation of an undergraduate major in CS&E is not reasonable. The Initiative should not include the development of an undergraduate major. This, coupled with the creation of a new, independent unit for CS&E, might lead to a superficial treatment of CS&E. The creation of an undergraduate major could be viewed as a potential long-term objective, but there is no consensus among the Committee members on this subject. CS&E will prepare our students for tomorrow's careers. The establishment and continued expansion of CS&E course development over the coming years is viewed by the Committee as a necessary process to prepare our university's students for careers in science and engineering of the ${21}^{\rm st}$ century. Departments with an interest in and need for the development of CS&E courses--either to keep their majors attractive or to make their graduating students more competitive--must allow for more flexibility in curricular course requirements imposed on their students. Revised curricular requirements should reflect that departments favor CS&E components in their students' course plans.