New Mexico Tech – Chemical Engineering Department Industrial Advisory Board
4 December 2009
Tom Engler
Cory LeClerc
Michaelann Tartis
Bob Bretz
Mike Riley
Seth Price
Kevin Honnell [Los Alamos NL]
Glenn Kuswa [Sandia NL]
Jason Harper [Sandia NL]
Don Hooper [Intel]
Dick Traeger [Sandia NL, retired]
Misc/Funding comments:
 Transport class is taught by a professor from another department for ~$4k/CR ( ie.
~$12k/class)
 There was a 3% budget tightening across the entiner school in 2009.
 Equipment and lab fees haven’t changed. Lab fees have been commensurate with
enrollment rise.
 NMT Chem E needs to compile an equipment need list that the board members
can match to surplus at their respective companies.
 Overhead is not returned to the department. 10% comes back to the PI (need to
apply for department grants.)
 27 undergraduate students/faculty ( 2nd highest at Tech)
 Freshman enrollment ~20 for 2009, down ~10 from 2008 but offset by transfers.
 Undergraduate research opportunities are a significant plus for the department in
national ranking consideration.
 Prior ABET deficiencies : 3.5 faculty ( no change), and space for labs ( no
change)
Recap of 2009 goals:
1. 5 year plan
2. Start up annual fundraising
3. Offer technical electives/Grad courses
4. AIChE needs to connect with 3 facilities for tours
5. Reach out to alumni and new companies in NM
Recommended actions 2010:
1. Update all safety related items for research teaching
a. Don to look into getting copies of Intel safety materials
2. Solicit donations/ gifts from alumni
a. Obtain tax ID number for the department
3. ID another potential board member
a. Jason Harper (SNL)
4. Hold an alumni event ( AIChE get-together, BBQ, M mountain run)
Student/Board Brown Bag discussion:
 Faculty approachable and very personable, relentless in addressing student
issues/needs, determined
 Faculty a significant plus
 New faculty has worked hard to ensure continuity or consensus on classes and
curriculum
 Course work flows nicely with an even course load
 Would like to see a shift in material presentation : currently focuses on theory first
then practical application, would like this order reversed
 CHE326 intro the Chem E a great class ( equations vs hands on)
 Good diversity of EE/ME/ChE courses. Very much like the diversity of the
program
 Felt very well prepared for graduation and beyond.
 Unit Ops class plus senior project presentation shows the freshman how
everything works. Good tie to the classes.
 Married housing a bit sketchy. Could be better, not very family friendly.
 Dorm is more expensive than renting off campus.
 Books and lectures match well, except for chemE thermo where the lecture-bookhomework do not match the exams at all. Tests are subjective essay questions
about historical figures and personal philosophies do not strike the students as
practical. In general the students picked up a secondary textbook as a crossreference.
 CHE326 text is useful and clear
 Separations theory: connection to real world applications seems tenuous and
abstract
 ES405 labs: very helpful. Seth does an excellent job prepping and pre-briefing the
lab for the students. Great ties to the lab and real world situation
 Would like to see more variety in actual equipment eg. Thermocouples
 Seems to be a circuit course supplement. Would like to see control valves to get a
hands-on perspective
 Content seems to be different
 Undergrad research is great !
 Undergrad TA opportunities are great !
 Senior project is a great opportunity to work on teamwork and communication
 Senior design projects are great. Beneficial to have to self-define the project
subject to student capabilities and funding. Get to pick your own, have a 2 week
deadline to decide.
 Elective selection is very flexible and opportunistic. Some students on a tight
schedule ( march) to graduation are forced into taking some electives that they do
not want.
o Professors are willing to work with students to try to accommodate their
needs and wants.
o Would be helpful to cluster or block the electives for ease of selection and
reduced conflict with core classes.
Follow-up with Faculty:
 Provided summary feedback from board/student brown bag discussion.
 Discussion of ES110 differences between departments and relevance of the
classes to other departments.
o Compared ES110/CH110 content differences
 Revisited the recommended actions for 2010:
o Funding/Endowment drive
 Can a process be defined to generate a sizeable endowment to
sustain the department. Current balance is $3k, target $15k
 How to manage discretionary funds?
 Set up separate endowments:
 Student scholarships
 Faculty development
 Slush
Get current students to do a pizza-thon?
o Expand the board scope to include a representative from the pharma industry, or
weapons labs, or Exxon…?
o 2010 is the centennial anniversary of Tech
Educational Objective review:
o Develop engineers
o Engender understanding
o Provide a conduit to careers
o Foster a life long love of learning
[Post these on the department website]
ABET :
o Board reconvene in June to prepare for ABET review, separate from the senior
design review.
Review of recommended actions from 2009:
o Long term assessment plan – in progress
o Qualitative assessment of senior design – done
o Re-evaluate use of FE results – done
o Set up annual alumni review – done
o Review Curriculum – in progress
Review of Educational Objectives for 2010:
o Articulate long term assessment plan for spring board meeting
o Prepare self-study for ABET
o
o
o
o
Complete feasibility study to include safety outcomes or objectives
Increase unit ops lab by one; include more stats in data analysis
Look into operating procedures of labs with a safety focus
Include / validate engineering ethics in the outcomes
In summary: The goal is to develop complete engineers who can solve problems,
experiment, innovate, be resourceful, and champion ideas through effective
communication.
Misc Discussion:
Lots of discussion around the articulation of long term assessment.
Leverage alumni ( need funds)
Leverage UNM or other schools for shared learning or collaboration
What to do when Dr. Bretz retires?
Discussed revamping the format of the IAB meeting. Does this format work or do we
need to revisit it?
What does the faculty want to see from the IAB membership?
o Tours, guest speakers, connections, feedback, sounding board for ideas
o Letters to the administration
o Lab space
o Overhead
Suggested that the board request some time with the VP of academic affairs, or the
President to discuss Chemical Engineering at Tech.
Proposed dates for next meeting: Monday or Friday in the vicinity of May 17th.
The FE exam is April 23.
Regards,
Don Hooper