MEMORANDUM
Department of Mechanical Engineering
To:
MEAB Board Members, and students
From:
John McKelliget, Professor and Chair
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Subject:
Faculty response to MEAB/Student Closed session on 10/12/01
Date:
05/24/02
A faculty meeting was held 5/1/02 which included a discussion of the student inputs to the
Mechanical Engineering Advisory Board on 10/12/01.
The meeting on 10/12/01 was the first meeting between industrial board members and students,
and the Department Chair stressed to the faculty the importance of providing feedback to the
students. A write-up of the student comments is available in the MEAB folder. The MEAB
discussion, at which faculty were not present, was of a fairly general nature. There were some
comments that related to University life in general and which were not under the control of the
Department. These concerns were noted, but are not specifically addressed here.
The students mentioned the lack of meaningful exposure to electrical engineering in the
curriculum. There is currently only one 4-credit course with lab. (16.211,16.212). The faculty are
aware of this problem – in fact it was discussed extensively at the MEAB meeting on 10/12/200.
At that meeting we had proposed the creation of a departmental course in EE to replace
16.211/2. This has not yet been implemented, mainly as a result of a lack of faculty. One
strategy that is currently in place allows students to take Physics II (Electricity and Magnetism)
instead of 16.211/2. Total program credit hour restrictions effectively prevent us from offering a
second EE course in addition to current requirements, except in the form of a technical elective.
The faculty is aware of this issue and will continue to seek a solution.
The students commented on the large amount of material in the Junior year. The volume of
material often precluded an in-depth study of the material. The faculty agree that this is a
challenging year. To ease the load the Machine Design courses 22.321 and 22.322 would be
restructured for the Fall 2002 and Spring 2003 semesters to include fewer topics, but more indepth study. Prof. Robertson would be the instructor.
The students felt that the Professors were really receptive to student questions and gave good
advice on questions relating to course material. The faculty were pleased that this was the case.
The students did express some concerns about faculty advising on course scheduling issues.
They felt that there were instances where bad advice had been given and felt that more training
be given to faculty. It should be noted that faculty are actually provided with no formal training in
the advising process. Essentially they rely on their working knowledge of the curriculum. The
faculty, in turn, were critical of the student’s attitude to advising, with very few students actually
turning up during the allotted advising period. The students also suggested the possibility of
having peer advisors (i.e. students advising students). The faculty felt this would probably be
rather risky as the student’s understanding of curriculum issues is often rudimentary. It should be
noted that the advising process has a high priority with the Dean at the College level.
The students felt that the curriculum was too rigid and structured, with trailer sections of courses
seldom offered. Some faculty agreed with this, while others were of the opinion that the structure
enhanced rigor. The trailer section issue is primarily a resource issue. If the faculty situation
eases in the future the Chair would make every attempt to offer more trailer sections. He will be
offering a trailer section of Statics in Spring 2003.
Students expressed an interest in taking business related courses. There are various proposals
floating around that would provide business related courses to engineering students. We will
keep you posted.
The issue of technical writing was raised by the students. They felt that different faculty had
different expectations in this regard. They would like too see a departmental standard. They
would also support the requirement of a technical writing course as part of Gen Ed. if the
Department writing standards were in agreement with the course writing standards. The Dept.
standards should also agree with the standards used in the Writing Workshop. In response to
this the faculty will post the standards for the three different types of report on the Web and
attempt to coordinate all of these issues. There was some discussion amongst the faculty as to
whether rigid formats were necessary. The watchwords for writing should be COMMONSENSE
and COMMUNICATION.
There were some issues raised by the students concerning the COOP program. They gave their
COOP experiences mixed reviews. Prof. Shina said that with the current recession, many COOP
opportunities had dried up recently. We have about ¼ to1/3 of our students doing COOP. We
currently have 5 students on the Scholar-Intern program. The S-I program has been targeted by
the Dean for future growth.
The students were very critical of the sophomore design sequence 22.201 and 22.202. They felt
that the courses were a good idea, but that they could be so much more. The faculty response
was that one major change to this sequence, replacing Pro-E with Solidworks, had already been
made. Professor Parkin also agreed to implement a complete overhaul of these courses,
effective Fall 2002 and Spring 2003. Future input from students on these improvements is
requested.
The students were critical of the Introduction to Engineering courses in the Freshman Year. The
faculty noted that these courses have been completely restructured for the 2002-2003 academic
year. 25.107 is now a College-wide introduction to all the engineering disciplines, while 25.108 is
taught by the individual departments and contains the computer tools – and much more. We will
have to wait and see the response to the new courses.
Summary of important issues
•
EE content of ME curriculum
•
Advising processes
•
Uniform writing standards
•
Changes to 22.201 22.202
•
Changes to 25.107, 25.108