Priority Case for Expanding IMDM 227 and IMDM 290 Offerings
The program should consider increasing the frequency of key gateway courses that create significant downstream delays when missed. The goal is not to offer every required IMDM course every semester, but to identify the courses whose position in the prerequisite sequence has the greatest effect on student progression and prioritize those within available instructional capacity.
IMDM 227 appears to be the strongest initial candidate for regular fall and spring offerings. It sits early enough in the curriculum that a missed offering can affect several later requirements, and it serves as an important transition from introductory computational literacy into more substantial interactive and computational media work. For transfer students, internal transfers, students changing specializations, and students whose prior coursework does not map cleanly onto the IMDM sequence, waiting an entire academic year for this gateway can create delays that extend well beyond the course itself.
Offering IMDM 227 in both semesters would create an additional point of entry into the intermediate curriculum. Students who complete introductory requirements in the fall could continue immediately in the spring, while students entering the program off-cycle would not necessarily need to wait until the following fall to begin this portion of the sequence. It would also provide a faster recovery path for students who withdraw, fail, take a leave of absence, or otherwise become misaligned with the standard four-year plan.
IMDM 290 should be considered a second important candidate for increased frequency. Once students move through IMDM 227 more flexibly, a once-per-year offering of IMDM 290 may become the next major scheduling bottleneck. Offering IMDM 290 in both semesters could therefore further reduce delays and make the curriculum more resilient, particularly for students entering the sequence at different points.
These changes, however, need to be evaluated within the realities of faculty teaching loads, enrollment, instructional support, facilities, and downstream course capacity. Adding sections without additional resources may simply shift pressure elsewhere in the curriculum or reduce the program's ability to offer upper-level electives and special topics courses.
For that reason, IMDM 227 should be treated as the first scheduling priority rather than assuming that both courses must immediately run every semester. The program could monitor enrollment, transfer patterns, waitlists, time-to-degree effects, and progression into later courses after expanding IMDM 227. If IMDM 290 then emerges as the next significant bottleneck, it would become the logical second priority for expanded scheduling.
Course frequency should also be considered in relation to the prerequisite network rather than enrollment alone. A course with moderate enrollment may still deserve additional instructional resources if missing it can delay access to several subsequent requirements. Conversely, specialized upper-level courses may be able to rotate annually with relatively little impact on student progress.
Any expansion would also need to account for faculty expertise, TA or instructional support, room and equipment availability, and consistency across sections. If IMDM 227 is taught by different faculty in fall and spring, shared learning outcomes and baseline competencies would be important so that students enter later courses with comparable preparation.
The program should therefore begin by asking a practical question: where does a missed course produce the greatest downstream delay? Based on its position in the sequence, IMDM 227 is the strongest candidate for a regular fall and spring offering. IMDM 290 is a second important candidate and should be evaluated as part of the same effort to make the curriculum more flexible for transfer students and other students entering the degree off-cycle.