College of Engineering
Bachelor of Science and Master of Science in Aerospace
Engineering Program AY 2007-2008 Cycle
Program Planning Committee
Report to the Provost September 12, 2008
The Bachelor of Science and Master of Science in Aerospace Engineering Program is situated in a
geographic area where it is poised to collaborate with important government aerospace agencies and
private industries, such as NASA Ames and Lockheed-Martin. The two program faculty oversee slightly
more than 200 students but are supported by part-time faculty and other faculty from the Mechanical and
Aerospace Engineering Department. The BSAE is ABET accredited and was last reviewed in 2006.
According to the AE faculty, the program was commended but did not receive a full-six year
accreditation due to insufficient number of faculty. The external review recommended hiring an associate
or full professor who can provide program leadership. However, the reviewer also noted that the program
is at a crucial crossroads because there is a lack of trust between the MAE chair and the AE faculty which
the reviewer feels is jeopardizing the future viability of the program. In addition, the reviewer stated the
following “One of the more disturbing aspects of this rift is that the undergraduate students in AE are
acutely aware of the problem and see how it is adversely impacting their own education, which is a very
unfortunate situation.” The MAE department chair rebutted most of the external reviewer’s report by
asserting that the report was based on an unauthorized Self-Study, written by an AE faculty member, that
was not approved by the department prior to submission. The College of Engineering Program Planning
Review Committee noted the clear disagreement between the AE faculty and MAE department
concerning the state of the AE program and decided that it “…cannot make any recommendations based
upon the information provided by the MAE department, AE faculty, and External reviewer.”
The AE department made some important progress toward program assessment by adding two new ABET
required assessment criterion. The four BSAE Program Educational Objectives (PEO) are assessed by
departmental faculty who are asked their opinions of student success. Furthermore, the BSAE Program
Outcomes (PO) are measured indirectly by asking student opinions about whether or not a specific course
had increased their ability to accomplish a specific outcome. While this indirect approach is adequate,
direct assessment of selected course learning objectives should be conducted in order to measure student
performance in the BSAE and MSAE programs. The MSAE students’ Program Educational Objectives
(PEO) are evaluated by faculty assessing project and thesis reports across 13 objectives. The WASC
team, in their March 2007 visit, encouraged all programs to put greater focus on program (rather than
course) assessment and use data (course and other sources) to evaluate the achievement of program
outcomes at graduation. Should the AE Program need help with assessment activities, the Director of
Assessment and College Facilitators are available to provide suggestions and support. In accordance with
the 2006 Program Planning Guidelines, in the next program cycle, the self study should include program
assessment plans, the university assessment reports, and an evaluation of the results of assessment efforts
with particular attention to modifications that have been made to improve student achievement of learning
goals and outcomes.
The final step in the program planning process is a meeting with the Provost Sigler (or her designee), Bill
Nance, Vice Provost for Academic Budgets and Planning, Bob Cooper, AVP of Undergraduate Studies,
Pam Stacks, AVP of Graduate Studies, and Dean Wei and MAE Chair Fred Barez. The department
should contact Ryoko Goldston in the Office of Undergraduate Studies to schedule the final meeting. The
following topics for discussion are summarized from the reports:
Page 1 of 14

Plan to ameliorate dissension between the AE faculty and MAE Administration.

Plan to insure that student academic advising and progress are not impeded by faculty
dissension.

Faculty hiring plan.
If the Department would like to propose other issues for the meeting, please discuss the appropriateness
of the topics with your Dean.
Given the dissension between the faculty, lack of clarity in the self-study, and the deviation from the
normal program planning procedures, the Program Planning Committee cannot conduct a thorough
review of the AE Self-Study. However, rather than reject the self-study, the Program Planning
Committee accepts the self-study with reservations and concern. The department should note that
program planning guidelines were revised in 2006. The next self-study is due spring 2012 for program
review in AY 2012- 2013.
Program Planning Committee
Mary Calegari
Peter Chua
Elaine Collins
Bob Cooper
Thuy Le
Bill Nance
Dan Perales
Mahesh Rajan
Jacqueline Snell
Pam Stacks
Gary Stebbins
Patricia Stroh
Ashwini Wagle
CC:
Fred Barez, MAE Chair
Belle Wei, Dean, Engineering
Ahmed Hambaba, Associate Dean, Engineering
Ping Hsu, Associate Dean, Engineering
Beth Von Till, Chair, Curriculum and Research
Bob Cooper, AVP Undergraduate Studies
Pam Stacks, AVP Graduate Studies
Bill Nance, Vice-Provost
Page 2 of 14
Appendix: Summary of the Program Planning Report for Bachelor of Science and Master of
Science on Aerospace Engineering
Self-Study – AY 2006-2007
The following summary is based on the Self-Study submitted by Dr. Nikos J. Mourtos, an AE faculty
member, on December 18, 2006. Most of the content of the report comes from an AE Self-Study
submitted to the ABET accrediting body in 2005 for the BSAE program. In addition, the Self-Study
contains a summary of an external review report that was conducted in 2003 of the MSAE. That report is
not described in this Program Planning Committee report since there was an external review conducted in
2006.
Program Summary
The Aerospace Engineering Program offers the Bachelor of Science in Aerospace Engineering (BSAE)
and the Master of Science in Aerospace Engineering (MSAE) degrees. The program has options in three
areas: Aircraft Design, Space Systems, and Space Transportation & Exploration. The program is
administered by the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering.
BSAE Program Strengths as noted in the 2006 ABET report:
Faculty members are dedicated to teaching and improving the quality of classroom and laboratory
instruction.
The MAE Department Chair and faculty have been very resourceful in obtaining equipment donations
from industry and in securing alternate sources of funding to maintain and upgrade the AE laboratories.
Morale among faculty, staff and students is very high. There appears to be exceptionally good
cooperation between the AE and the ME faculty members in the Department.
BSAE Program Weaknesses noted in the 2006 ABET report:
The number of faculty members is small relative to the number of students and the overall scope of the
program.
Teaching loads are very high.
Little or no margin exists to accommodate faculty member departures, retirements, sabbaticals, or even
extended leave situations.
Recent attempts by the program to hire an additional fulltime faculty member were unsuccessful due to
budget cuts. The quality and continuity of the program may be compromised.
Filling the vacant faculty position will be a focus of the next review.
AE Faculty Response to ABET evaluator (2006).
Faculty morale and cooperation among the AE and ME Faculty.

The statement that there is "exceptionally good cooperation between the AE and the ME faculty
members" is inaccurate. The morale of the AE faculty is currently very low because of the
inability to resolve:
Page 3 of 14

BSAE and MSAE student advising,

supervision of MSAE projects/theses,

participation of AE faculty in the Lockheed-Martin MSAE Program,

the quality of teaching in AE courses taught by part-time faculty,

the distribution of resources between the AE and the ME Programs, and

The Coordination of the AE Program in general.

In addition, several ME faculty have made negative comments regarding the AE Program during
Department meetings.
Teaching loads/Reliance on part-time instructors:

The teaching loads for the AE faculty are high, due to the need for two faculty members to cover all
the core BSAE courses as well as several MSAE courses each.

AE faculty could opt to teach ME courses with large enrollments and decrease their number of
preparations to three per semester. However, AE faculty have chosen the higher number of course
preparations per semester in an effort to cover as many AE courses as possible.

Despite AE faculty effort, however, a very large percentage of AE courses, especially at the graduate
level, are taught by part-time instructors. Dr. Barez has not significantly decreased the Departments
reliance on part-time instructors.
Number of tenured / tenure-track AE faculty

The Department has agreed to hire a 3rd AE faculty member, although the position is now limited to
the Assistant Professor level (it was Assistant or Associate Professor in the search during AY 04-05).

A new Assistant Professor with proper expertise (Space Systems / Satellite Design) would, of course,
satisfy the needs of the AE Program. However, based on the small number of applicants in the past
two searches, the AE faculty are concerned that we limit our options and may not be able to find
qualified candidates. Moreover, as of the time this report is being written, the faculty position has not
yet been advertised.
Facilities / Technical Support:

Despite the hiring of a capable lab technician he simply cannot effectively maintain the large number
of labs.

Department office staff support is a concern because a single staff member serves the entire
Department.
Technical Publications

Technical publications have increased significantly in the last five years, primarily due to the
successful mentoring of MSAE students who write their final reports in a conference/journal paper
format and present their work in professional conferences.
Page 4 of 14
Summary of Self-Study submitted by Dr. Nikos Mourtos, December 18, 2006
Students
In fall 2006, the Program had 179 undergraduate students and 24 masters students. Between fall 2001 and
fall 2006, total enrollment increased from 151 to 203 students.
Faculty
There are two full-time faculty members, three part-time faculty members, a full-time administrator, and a
full-time technician.
Staff and instructional resources
The services of an office administrator and technician are shared with the Mechanical Engineering
Program. The AE Program has exclusive use of eight instructional laboratories covering nearly 9,500 sq.
ft.
Assessment
The BSAE Program’s accredited by the American Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) which
has two assessment criteria introduced in 2000: Criterion 2, Program Educational Objectives (PEO) and
Criterion 3, Program Outcomes (PO). Program Educational Objectives are defined with input from all
program constituents (i.e., (AE Advisory Board, Employers, Alumni, faculty, and students) and describe
the expected accomplishments of graduates during the first several years following graduation. Program
Outcomes, on the other hand, describe what students are expected to know or be able to do by the time of
graduation.

Based on the data presented in the AE Self-Study Report the AE Program states that they satisfied all
outcomes.

The self study also states that the AE Program did not receive a full six-year accreditation due to
insufficient number of faculty.

For the MSAE Program, the Program Educational Objectives (PEO) were assessed in fall 2005
through examination of 24 MSAE project/thesis reports from AY 03-04 and 04-05.

According to the Self-Study, the results of this PEO assessment revealed that:

A large number of reports (21%) were missing (unavailable for assessment),

ME faculty members supervise MSAE projects/theses without having the expertise called for in the
project,

MSAE students are encouraged by the MAE Chair to seek committee members outside the MAE
Department despite the fact that AE faculty have the expertise and are willing to supervise their
students, and
Page 5 of 14

The MSAE Program at Lockheed-Martin is run with virtually no participation by the AE faculty.

A fair number of MSAE students receive their degree without ever coming into contact with an AE
faculty member through advising, coursework or project/thesis work.

The results of these policies have been detrimental to the quality and visibility of the MSAE
Program, especially at Lockheed-Martin where the enrollment has dropped from 35 students in 2002
to five in 2006.
Self-Study Program Planning and Strategies Summary
The Self-Study states that, in order for the AE program to reach its full potential:

Will require structural changes in the way the Program is managed

Addition of a third faculty member to cover the area of Space Systems.

AE faculty need autonomy and authority in making programmatic decisions, such as planning and
promoting their program, student advising, and curricular matters.

The AE faculty will explore alternative models of instructional delivery, such as integrating AE
courses through projects to engage undergraduate students in research and offering courses online.

AE faculty will explore the possibility of developing interdisciplinary programs with other majors as
well as a concurrent BSAE / MSAE track for qualified students.

AEIO will be re-established at the sophomore level as a hands-on course to connect AE sophomores
with seniors through participation in national design competitions.

At the graduate level, AE faculty will establish curriculum and research in Aircraft Design (including
DAVs) and Planetary Entry, Descent, and Landing (EDL) technologies.

Although the development of meaningful relationships with local industry (Lockheed-Martin, NASA
Ames, Loral) has always been a high priority in the AE Program, currently the AE faculty members
are excluded from planning and promoting these relationships. In fact, they are not allowed to teach
their MSAE courses or supervise MSAE projects at off campus sites (ex. Lockheed-Martin). Unless
these policies change, the AE faculty cannot effectively contribute to the COE goal "to be a preferred
partner for applied research and development".

The AE faculty will seek opportunities to collaborate with academic institutions and other
professional organizations overseas in order to increase student participation in exchange programs,
design competitions, and conferences.
PPC review of the Self-Study Assessments
The four BSAE Program Educational Objectives (PEO) are as follows:
BSAE graduates must have:
A strong foundation in mathematics, basic science and engineering fundamentals, to successfully compete
for entry-level positions or pursue graduate studies in AE or related fields.
Contemporary professional and lifelong learning skills including hands-on laboratory experience,
familiarity with computers, modem software, and information technology, to successfully compete in the
local, national and global engineering market.
Strong communication and interpersonal skills, broad knowledge, and an understanding of multicultural
and global perspectives to work effectively in multidisciplinary teams, both as team members and as
leaders.
Page 6 of 14
An understanding of the ethical choices inherent in the engineering profession to deal with issues such as
public safety, honest product marketing, and respect for intellectual property.
A review of the PEO data provided for the BSAE showed that the PEOs were assessed during two
meetings in which departmental faculty were asked “…their opinions on how well students meet the
PEOs by the time they graduate, based on their interactions with students in their course.”
Assessment of the BSAE Program Outcomes (PO) focused on students answering between 5 and 13
questions in each of the following outcomes. Students were asked to indicate whether they “agreed”,
“disagreed”, or “were not sure” about whether a specific courses had increased their ability to accomplish
a specific outcome.
BSAE Program Outcomes
ABET Criterion 3 [ref. 1] requires engineering programs seeking accreditation to demonstrate that their
graduates have:
(a) An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering.
(b) An ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data.
(c) An ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs within realistic constraints
such as economic, environmental, social, political, ethical, health and safety, manufacturability and
sustainability.
(d) An ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams.
(e) An ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems.
(f) An understanding of professional and ethical responsibility.
(g) An ability to communicate effectively.
(h) The broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global and
societal context.
(j) A recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in life-long learning. 0) A knowledge of
contemporary issues.
(k) An ability to use the techniques, skills, and modem engineering tools necessary for engineering
practice.
The 13 MSAE Program Educational Objectives (PEO) are as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Application of mathematics appropriate for graduate level
Application of science appropriate for graduate level
Application of engineering fundamentals appropriate for graduate level 2
Use of modern tools (computational or experimental)
Appropriate literature search (# and appropriateness of references cited) 2
Understanding of the cited literature (summary of previous work)
Understanding of the work performed in the project 7
In-depth analysis and / or design of an AE system
Correct language and terminology 9
Abstract, ability to summarize, draw conclusions
Appropriate use of graphs and tables
Clear objectives (problem definition)
Page 7 of 14
13. Appropriate assumptions / modeling of the problem 13
The above objectives were evaluated by faculty assessing project and thesis reports, across the objectives.
Among the 24 eligible reports, 5 reports were missing.
External Reviewer Report – December 18, 2007
The external reviewer was Dr. Russell M. Cummings, Professor of Aeronautics, U.S. Air Force Academy.
He conducted his visit on March 12-13, 2007. Dr. Cummings reviewed both the bachelor’s and the
master’s
Summary of Reviewers Preamble to the Report
Institutional Support and Financial Resources

The AE Program being located within a region that contains such a large percentage of the hightechnology industries of the country (e.g., NASA, Lockheed Martin, Loral, and others).is truly an
advantage for the university.

The AE program was first accredited in 1991 and had potential for growth at both the BS and MS
levels. In spite of this, the program had declining student enrollment in a period of a State budget
crisis, leading to a merger of AE with the Mechanical Engineering Department.

The retirement and resignation of two key faculty further eroded the program, resulting in a lessthan-full accreditation from ABET after their review in 2005.

The program is at a crucial crossroads. Specifically, while a number of important areas of
opportunity exist within the program and department, not many of these issues can be effectively
resolved at the present time due to the lack of trust between Dr. Barez and Dr. Mourtos. It is
jeopardizing the future viability of the program. This must be resolved before meaningful, long term
solutions can be found for all other issues. One of the more disturbing aspects of this rift is that the
undergraduate students in AE are acutely aware of the problem and see how it is adversely impacting
their own education, which is a very unfortunate situation.

Based on the above, hiring a new faculty member at the Assistant Professor level will not improve
the quality of the program in the long term. A possible solution is to search for an Associate or Full
Professor who can also be the AE Program Director (in fact, if not in title), with appropriate levels of
release time to achieve the many administrative duties of the program.

The Director, under the leadership of the MAE Department Chair, would have authority and ability
to make decisions for the program. A new director would allow most, if not all, of these issues to be
resolved effectively. The issues requiring attention include:

The program faculty must be allowed to retain ownership of the curriculum, within the budgetary
and logistical constraints of the MAE Dept., the College of Engineering, SJSU, and the CSU.

The program faculty must have oversight and approval authority for advising all BS and MS students
in AE (an Engineering Advising Center could be a College-wide solution to this issue).

The AE faculty need to control their independent study WTU credits, to be used in ways that make
sense for their program.

The AE faculty need to have participation in the recruitment for, and hiring of, part-time faculty that
teach AE courses.
Page 8 of 14

The AE faculty's concern for students has led them to offer multiple options and electives at both the
BS and MS levels. This is only efficiently handled if the effective integration of other courses can be
accomplished. ME faculty are unaware of the needs of the AE curriculum in these areas, so good
communication could greatly improve the integration.

Effective integration can free up the program faculty to concentrate on other important issues,
including outreach (and the improvement in the number of women in the program, which is currently
at half the national average), improving retention of students, improving relations with industry,
improving fund raising efforts, increasing funded research, etc.

The AE faculty need to prioritize their Five Year Plan Goals; some things make sense in the short
term, others need to wait until the health of the program is stabilized. A Blended BS/MS program
can have positive impacts; this can be accomplished in the short term with minimal expenditure of
time and energy. Online courses, Interdisciplinary programs, International programs, and increasing
the electives available in aircraft systems are all good ideas, but often time consuming. I would
recommend waiting on these issue until later.

The program faculty have defined goals and objectives which do not make the AE program truly
unique. The program’s unique mission must be made part of the goals and everyday existence of the
program.

The AE labs need attention: both equipment and space utilization can be improved, all to the benefit
of the students and program.

The AE faculty can increase their funded research, which will support-t the development of dual-use
labs by improving equipment, which benefits both the undergraduate and graduate students.
Summary of the Reviewers Report on the of B.S. and M.S. in Aerospace Engineering Program
Program Planning

The program is well thought out and has good Program Outcomes and a reasonable Assessment
Plan. However, the program does not seem to define itself in any unique way.

While there seemed to be a great deal of assessment, the reviewer was not impressed with the level
of continuous improvement based on that assessment. The program faculty should consider
improving the formal feedback of assessment results into their course improvement cycle (something
which may be going on but which was not easy to see from the Self Study Report).

An advisory board reviews program plans and gives input, which is necessary, but the size of the
board should be increased to give a broader view from across the aerospace industry.

The viability of the program is currently limited due to the small number of full-time faculty. The
program cannot continue to exist without the addition of at least one more full-time faculty member.
ABET has expressed concern at the low level of fulltime faculty, and this issue must be addressed in
the near term.

It is recommended that the faculty consider a blended BS/MS program. Excluded from the list
should be online courses, interdisciplinary programs, international programs, and increasing the
electives available in aircraft systems; these goals should wait until the program is stronger and more
independent.
Students

There are approximately 180 BSAE students enrolled in the program, which represents a growth
over recent years.
Page 9 of 14

The number of under-represented students is fairly normal for an urban university, but the number of
women students is approximately one half of the national average in engineering.

Interviews with students showed that they believe that the small number of AE faculty is hampering
their throughput in the program and that the in-fighting between the AE faculty and the MAE
Department has at times led to "overnight" changes in their curriculum options.

There are approximately 24 MSAE students enrolled in the program, which represents a growth over
recent years. In my interview with three graduate students from the AE program, they seemed
unaware of the current department situation, other than the fact that they receive conflicting
information about courses and policies from the AE and ME faculty. Specifically, they are frustrated
about the current seminar course and aren't sure if it is a requirement or not.
Faculty

There are only two full-time faculty members within the AE program, which greatly restricts the
future viability of the program.

The two full-time faculty have good qualifications and are offering a reasonable AE program for
their students.

The full-time faculty are teaching approximately 3/4ths of the required courses, which requires 3-4
course preparations per semester plus administrative overhead: the full-time faculty are stretched too
thin.

The two full-time faculty have good qualifications and are offering a reasonable MSAE program for
their students. However, the AE faculty are not fully involved in teaching the Lockheed-Martin
MSAE program, which may lead to quality issues in the future. The Lockheed-Martin AE program is
disconnected from the full-time AE faculty, which is not positive for the program or the students
pursuing the degree. The faculty need to be active participants in the program for its future growth
and Viability.

The part-time faculty within the program seemed remarkably well connected to the MAE
Department and had a number of positive comments about their experiences at SJSU. However, the
part-time faculty members are hired by the MAE Department, and the AE faculty do not know about
available funding levels for hiring, nor do they seem to participate in the hiring process. The AE
faculty must be involved in the hiring of part-time faculty (both "who" is hired and "what" they can
teach).
Administration

This is perhaps the biggest problem area within the AE program. Specifically, the chair of the MAE
Department and the AE faculty cannot seem to work together on multiple issues which are critical to
the program. Unless the issues related to the administration of the program can be resolved, the
future of the program is in jeopardy.

The awkward nature of the relationship between the AE program and the MAE Department makes it
difficult for the AE faculty to feel ownership of their program.
Advising

The College of Engineering provides advising for engineering students, but only related to their
general education coursework, probation, and administrative issues.

The MAE Department provides a group of faculty advisors for students who meet with students
every term.
Page 10 of 14

The students within the AE program have not always received advising from the faculty within the
AE program, a situation which is not acceptable.

Several undergraduate AE students mentioned that advising was spotty at best and bemoaned the fact
that they often did not receive advising from their own faculty.

All graduate student advising is handled within the MSAE Department, an appropriate and normal
situation. The MSAE program at Lockheed-Martin, however, seems to be advised by non-AE
faculty, a situation which is not advisable. When graduate students choose courses and project/thesis
advisors, they should receive advising from faculty within their program.
Facilities

The AE program has excellent space allocations for most laboratories and club activities. While
some labs were under-sized, the average amount of space for the number of students in the program
was enviable. In general, however, the lab space does not seem well utilized, with large lab areas
being used for storage or other non-educational purposes.

The equipment in the labs, in general, seemed to be in need of repair and modernization. Many of
these issues could be addressed with increased support from outside sources, including research
funding, donations, and increased industry involvement with the program.

There is one full-time technician for the program, but his time and energy is stretched thin by having
to handle everything from equipment maintenance and repair to computer issues.
Institutional Support and Financial Resources

Where the AE program is really lacking is in providing the additional funds that are necessary for
creating a quality program. These funds would normally come from donations (both cash and inkind), research funding, and other forms of outside support. This type of support, however, requires a
great deal of time and effort, something which is not readily available to the AE faculty.

A single administrative assistant serves the MAE Department and is also stretched thin: additional
student assistants for both the technician and front office could greatly improve the functioning of
the facilities and program.
Aerospace Engineering Faculty Response to External Program Review, April 30, 2007
The following are direct quotes from AE response to the external reviewer:

The AE faculty wholeheartedly agree with Dr. Cummings assessment regarding the potential of the
AE Program at SJSU, as well as his comments regarding program planning, students, advising,
faculty, and in particular the administration of the AE Program.

Dr. Cummings states that "the lack of trust between Dr. Barez and Dr. Mourtos is jeopardizing the
future of the program". This lack of trust is also an issue for Dr. Papadopoulos.

If the structural issues as identified by Dr. Cummings (items 1 -4) are addressed, the AE faculty are
confident they can effectively carry out the directorship of their program, given adequate release
time.
Page 11 of 14
MAE Chair’s response to outside Reviewer – May 18, 2007.
Summary
The MAE Department Chair, Dr. Fred Barez, stated that the AE Program External Review Report
prepared by Dr. Russ Cummings following his visit to SJSU on March 12 and 13,2007 was based
primarily on an unauthorized Self-Study report submitted by AE faculty member, Dr. Nikos Mourtos,
dated December 18, 2006. According to the chair, the report is unauthorized since it did not receive
department approval as noted by Dr. Ahmed Hambaba, COE Associate Dean and Dr. Barez, MAE
Department Chairman. Dr. Barez goes on to state that:

The Self Study report wasn't an assessment report but just one person's opinion, which included
many complaints and unfounded accusations regarding the MAE department procedures and
administration.

The report contained inaccurate information related to the Department operation, management,
faculty, and staff.

Several comments made by the reviewer in his report are repetition of statements made in the
unauthorized Self-Study Report and reflects the commentary the AE faculty provided to him
during his visit, which were inaccurate and biased, and intended to damage the credibility of the
MAE programs and faculty. In addition the Reviewer overlooked some very obvious facts, and
contradicted some of his own observations.
In addition to the above assertions, following is a summary of the Chair’s responses to the Reviewer’s
comments:

The AE was merged into the ME Department in 1996 as it was notable to sustain itself with 80
total majors. The AE program does not have declining enrollment. The MAE department Chair
saved the program from elimination by building up the AE program (increase in enrollment from
80 students in fall 1998 to 206 majors in fall 2006). And despite AE faculty resignation and
retirement, the program has continued to grow.

The chair established the Lockheed-Martin off-campus MSAE program in fall 2000 and as a
result the MSAE program was saved. (See Exhibit E for AE program growth in spite of the
faculty resignation and retirement).

Regarding questions about “…jeopardizing the future viability of the program." The ABET
evaluators for both the AE and ME programs in the fall 2005 clearly highlight the smooth
operation of this department and its united faculty. The MAE department does not believe in one
faculty member claiming ownership of any program. All student and faculty need to be
considered equal partners working towards a more united and collaborative body.

The Reviewer suggests that the AE faculty need to participate in recruitment and hiring of PartTime Faculty. However, the reviewer also says that "the Part-Time Faculty within the AE
program seemed remarkably well connected to the MAE Department and had a number of
positive comments about their experience at SJSU". The AE faculty along with the ME faculty
are invited to propose courses to be taught and recommend PT faculty to teach in the department.

The Reviewer stated that students “…believe that the in-fighting between the AE faculty and the
MAE Department has at times led to overnight changes in their curriculum options [that]
hampers their ability to get through the curriculum." The chair acknowledges that there is some
truth in this statement, but states the same AE faculty who wrote the unauthorized report changes
the curriculum requirements over-night despite the fact that he is not a designated Academic
Advisor in the department and has refused to be trained.

Related to "Advising" on page 6, the fact is that following the merger in 1996 through spring
2002, all MAE faculty members advised both AE and ME majors. In fall 2002, after several
Page 12 of 14
student surveys and feedback, the advising procedure was improved and smooth lined. To accuse
the MAE department and its faculty of improper or misleading AE advising is simply
irresponsible and intend to smear the ME faculty and the department chair. There is no evidence
to support this accusation.

The students, beginning fall 2002 were given the option to be advised by a designated group of
AE and ME faculty academic advisors throughout the week. They were given a choice to go to
any of the available advisors that suits their schedule and preference. This modified advising has
provided an added convenience for student to get advising throughout the week and the choice of
advisor, additionally, the faculty has used the release time to enhance their teaching and
scholarly work. The Reviewer did not see these benefits as he was mislead to believe otherwise.

The Reviewer in "Administration" section on page 6 comments that the "the AE faculty are often
out voted." Department has functioned well since it's merger and these issues are brought about
by the same AE faculty member. The comment made that "current faculty cannot possibly
accomplish many tasks while also teaching" shows a lack of understanding of our system of
education in the CSU. It is well evident that several ME faculty are quite willing to undertake
several tasks including teaching a full-load with heavy enrollment, recruiting, research, and
provide guidance to students. This is done consistently and several faculty members are doing so
without any additional 0.2 release time.

Related to "Advising" on page 9, the Reviewer comments that "the MSAE program at LockheedMartin, however, seems to be advised by non-AE faculty, a situation which is not advisable.
Response to this comment is that, it is not clear if the Reviewer refers to Academic Advising or
MS Project advising! The academic advising is a fixed plan of taking a series often (10) courses
called Cohort. There is no "so-called" academic advising as these students know what courses
they need to take each semester. Regarding the MS Project advising, of the recent twenty two
(22) MSAE graduates of the Lockheed-Martin cohort programs, 9 were advised by the
Department AE faculty and five (5) had a Department AE faculty as a Committee Member.
Furthermore, the AE faculty has been involved in the Lockheed-Martin Program and over the
period of fall 2000 to Spring 2007, twenty courses were offered in the MSAE Cohort of which
thirteen (13) are AE courses. Three (3) out of these courses were taught by one Full-Time
Department AE faculty per expertise in the field and their availability to teach. Once again, it
appears that the Reviewer did not have all the facts to make his comment. AE program faculty
was invited to participate in outreach effort at Lockheed-Martin but they chose not to participate,
with one time exception and are offered to teach courses when willing and available to take on
overload. '

The Reviewer in "Faculty" section on page 9, comments that the AE faculty is teaching
approximately 75 percents of the required courses. Response to this observation is that the AE
faculty does not carry course and student loads as the other faculty members in this department
(see Exhibit P, Summary of AEIME Program Course Enrollment fall 1996 to fall 2006).

In summary, the Reviewer's report should be viewed with some skepticism as he did not have the
complete factual evidence to support his comments. This was likely because he was influenced
and mislead by the written and verbal comments provided by Dr. Mourtos.

All other professional reviews, including the past ABET review of the department, as well as
recent and Past Program External Reviews, provide a better assessment of the MAE department
and its programs.
Page 13 of 14
College of Engineering Program Planning Review Committee AY 2006-2007 (no date provided)
The following is a direct quote:
Both the Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Department and the AE faculty have submitted formal
responses to the External Program Review submitted by Dr. Russell M. Cummings, March 27th, 2007.
There are contradicting opinions expressed by the External Reviewer, MAE Department, and AE faculty
over several issues. There is clear disagreement between the AE faculty and MAE department concerning
the state of the AE program. The COE Program Planning Review (PPR) Committee cannot make any
recommendations based upon the information provided by the MAE department, AE faculty, and External
reviewer
Page 14 of 14