ENGINEERING SCIENCE
Program Review – 2010-2011
PRIORITIES FOR THE FUTURE: NEXT FIVE YEARS
This review of the Engineering Science program has brought to light the current state of the program. Assessing this curriculum has been a challenge, as several departments are involved and each has its own set of standards and priorities. In many ways, the Engineering Science program is like a boat with many deck hands but no captain, simply following the current downstream. In spite of this, enrollment in the program is strong and a high percentage of these students are successful. Program Strengths: The curriculum of the Engineering Science program is robust. It provides a general background of courses that can reasonably be expected to transfer well regardless of the particular specialization of the student. Further, enrollment is strong, and students leave QCC well‐
prepared for the challenges facing them at a four‐year institution. Program Weaknesses & Recommendations: Rather than delineate specific weaknesses of the program, we shall recommend specific actions that should be taken to strengthen the program. But many, if not all, of these issues can be traced to a single weakness—lack of a central program coordinator.  More course assessment should be done. Detailed course assessments were not available for every course. Assessments that were completed were not completed regularly to allow a more comprehensive sketch of student progress. Ostensibly, this is due to the consortium of departments involved in the program, each with its own priorities and schedules. For example, the physics department assesses a course every time it is run, while certain courses were not assessed at all. It is expected that a central program coordinator would remedy this by keeping a schedule of assessment and informing departments when assessment should be completed.  The program should be advertised to increase enrollment. While enrollment is strong and has been increasing in the recent past, this is more a byproduct of factors outside the college than of active recruitment from QCC. An increase in enrollment would help to justify the need for a program coordinator. This would benefit all students, both new and returning cohorts.  Revise the curriculum to meet specific needs. Currently, the curriculum is “one size fits all,” meaning that all Engineering Science students take the same curriculum. Not only should the program offer a flexible set of requirements based on the intended major discipline of the student (e.g. civil, electrical, mechanical), but the program should offer specific sets of requirements based on the school to which a particular student intends to transfer. This would also eliminate generic social science electives, defining particular courses that would appropriately satisfy particular student needs. 
Examine the curriculum for relevance. During this review, it was suggested that objective E, demonstrate an understanding of professional, ethical, and social responsibilities as they relate to the engineering profession, be deleted from the list of program objectives because it is better appropriate to upper‐division courses. The program coordinator would continually examine the curriculum for issues such as this one, making revisions as needed. Further, there is no mechanism currently in place to ensure that the Engineering Science program remains in touch with the needs of four‐
year institutions and to ensure that graduates are adequately prepared for future study. The program coordinator would be in contact with representatives of four‐year institutions and monitor their degree requirements and other metrics. The program coordinator would also consider changes to the curriculum, check all courses for proper pre‐requisites and co‐requisites, and track the effectiveness of QCC graduates via surveys and other techniques. 
Establish and administer articulation agreements. While there is an articulation agreement with CCNY on paper, the enforcement of this is questionable. Further, there is a need for agreements with more schools. The program coordinator would establish relationships with other schools and ensure a continuous flow of information and a seamless transition for students going through the process. The coordinator would also ensure that these agreements are enforced. 
Create a central repository to meet the needs of existing students. There is no central location for an existing Engineering Science student to go when a question arises. Through no fault of anyone in particular, students may be bounced between both administrative and academic departments, without ever meeting someone with the expertise to answer the question. So, while the recurring theme of these recommendations is a program coordinator, an initial step might be establishing an office where all Engineering Science business is conducted. This would aid in retention by ensuring that all students are properly advised. Administrative support in this office would assist in the assessment efforts and create a “one‐stop‐shop” experience for students. Closing Thoughts Overall, there is great potential in the Engineering Science program. There has been success in the program even with the current management structure. An investment in the program is needed—not necessarily a financial investment but more of an investment in support and other resources. It is expected that, if QCC makes such an investment, it will pay great dividends for the institution.