ME Program Assessment Report
2006-2007
Submitted by:
MIE Undergraduate Director
Chair of the MIE Undergraduate Committee
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering (MIE)
University of Illinois at Chicago
Spring 2007
Distributed to:
 ME Faculty
 MIE Industrial Advisory Board
 MIE UG Student Advisory Board
1
Table of Contents:
I.
What are we Trying to Accomplish? ........................................................................... 4
A. Scope and Mission Statement, The University of Illinois at Chicago ..................... 4
B. ME Program Educational Objectives ....................................................................... 5
C. ME Program Educational Outcomes ........................................................................ 5
II. How do we Accomplish these Goals? .......................................................................... 6
A. ME Program Educational Objectives Mapped to ME Outcomes ............................ 6
B. ME Program Non-ME Courses Outcomes Matrix ................................................... 7
C. Mechanical Engineering: ME Courses Outcomes Matrix ........................................ 8
III.
How do we Monitor how well are we doing and Update the Program? .................. 9
A. ME Program Constituents ........................................................................................ 9
B. ME Program Assessment Process .......................................................................... 10
C. ME Program Assessment Tools ............................................................................. 11
IV. How Well are we Doing? ....................................................................................... 11
A. Students .................................................................................................................. 11
Senior Exit Survey Results (EBI plus additional questions) .................................... 11
Undergraduate Student Advisory Board .................................................................... 12
E-mails to Undergraduate Director ............................................................................ 14
Outcome Assessment ................................................................................................. 14
Outcome Directed Quizzes (Outcomes F & J, Ethics and Contemporary Issues) ..... 14
B. Alumni: ................................................................................................................... 16
Alumni Survey every three years ............................................................................... 16
C. Faculty: ................................................................................................................... 20
Faculty Meetings ........................................................................................................ 20
UG Committee ........................................................................................................... 20
Faculty Survey ........................................................................................................... 20
Faculty attend ABET Workshops .............................................................................. 21
D. Industrial Advisory Board: ..................................................................................... 21
IAB Meetings/Discussions (twice per year) .............................................................. 21
IAB Survey................................................................................................................. 22
E. Academic Peer Review: ......................................................................................... 23
External Review Report ............................................................................................. 23
Professionals working with Co-Op Students and Corporate Judges ......................... 24
2
V. Changes Made ............................................................................................................ 26
A. Added a course in Dynamics Systems and Control ............................................... 26
B. Two weeks (6 hours) of instruction for Linear Algebra added .............................. 26
C. Comprehensive Process to update Computer Facilities ......................................... 26
D. Modified CS109 to include MATLAB .................................................................. 26
VI. Future Changes ....................................................................................................... 27
A. Curriculum Update ................................................................................................. 27
Linear Algebra ........................................................................................................... 27
Design Course Sequence ............................................................................................ 27
Several Course Changes ............................................................................................. 27
B. Update Course Outcomes Matrix Sequence ........................................................... 28
C. Quizzes for Testing of Outcomes ........................................................................... 28
D. Visibility, Student Faculty Interaction, & Environment ........................................ 28
E. Requirements and Format of UG Research Technical Elective ............................. 29
F. Course Prerequisites ............................................................................................... 29
G. Better connection to our ME Alumni ..................................................................... 29
H. Course Scheduling .................................................................................................. 29
ME Program Student Organizations .......................................................................... 30
Senior Exit Survey Results (EBI plus additional questions) .................................... 31
Undergraduate Student Advisory Board .................................................................... 35
E-mails to Undergraduate Director ............................................................................ 41
Outcome Assessment ................................................................................................. 45
Outcome Directed Quizzes (Outcomes F & J, Ethics and Contemporary Issues) ..... 46
Faculty Meeting Minutes ........................................................................................... 47
Professionals working with students through Co-Op and Corporate Judges ............. 51
Adding Dynamic Systems & Control as a Required Course ..................................... 53
CASE FOR ADDING ME 312, DYNAMICS SYSTEMS & CONTROL TO CORE ME UG
CURRICULUM ..................................................................................................................... 53
COMMENT: Dynamic Systems & Control is NOT a “Design” course. Covers systems
modeling issues related to fluid, thermal, electrical, and mechanical elements as well as
transduction between them. System analysis approaches that are not medium-specific. 53
SOLUTION: New course ME 312. A required 3 hr course. Dynamic Systems & Control.
........................................................................................................................................... 53
3
I.
What are we Trying to Accomplish?
A.
Scope and Mission Statement, The University of Illinois at
Chicago
The University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC) is a comprehensive public university located in the
heart of one of the nation's largest metropolitan areas. It is one of three campuses of the State of
Illinois' land-grant university, the University of Illinois. Its mission comprises three traditional
elements-teaching, research, and public service, each shaped by and relevant to its metropolitan
setting as well as the University of Illinois' traditional pursuit of excellence. UIC serves not only
the citizens of the state of Illinois, but also students from throughout the nation and the world
who are attracted by both the University's programs and the metropolitan setting on which it
draws and to which it contributes.
UIC seeks to provide its undergraduates with an education, which is both broad and deep, to
prepare them for responsible citizenship, and to open intellectual and career opportunities which
will challenge their abilities. In doing so, UIC takes special account and advantage of the
extraordinary ethnic and cultural diversity of the Chicago metropolitan area, which encompasses
two-thirds of the population of Illinois and from which it presently draws most of its
undergraduate students. Among these students are many for whom a university education is not a
long-standing family tradition and who must surmount economic, social, and educational barriers
to achieve academic success. UIC endeavors to help these students fully realize their potential.
For the growing proportion of its students who are enrolled in graduate and professional
programs, both in Chicago and at its regional sites, UIC offers an education which will prepare
them to render skilled professional services and to assume positions of intellectual leadership in
their disciplines and professions.
In research and scholarship, the mission of UIC is to seek new knowledge and understanding at
the frontiers of learning. Both fundamental and applied studies are pursued, often in partnership
with the region's business, cultural, and service institutions. The academic community thus
serves as the focal point for investigation of the challenges and problems facing the region, the
State, and the society at large, both today and in the future.
UIC's public service activities include the provision of direct services which span the full range
of the campus's programs and disciplines. The clinical services provided by UIC's hospital and
clinics, and the active participation of faculty in a multitude of projects through UIC's many and
diverse research centers, help advance the efficiency and quality of life in the region. Members
of the faculty and staff also directly serve on boards, commissions, and advisory committees, in
communities throughout the metropolitan region, the nation, and the world.
Through its education, research, and public service, the University of Illinois at Chicago strives
to accomplish the land-grant mission originally envisioned for the University of Illinois in the
more agrarian environment of the nineteenth century. Located in the great metropolis that is both
the transportation hub of this country and the architectural capital of the world, UIC adapts that
mission to the challenges of the present and the future.
Ratified by the Faculty Senate of the University of Illinois at Chicago-November 19, 1986
Endorsed by the University of Illinois Board of Trustees-January 15, 1987
4
B.
ME Program Educational Objectives
1. To prepare students with the appropriate breadth and depth of technical knowledge necessary
to work effectively as a Mechanical Engineer in an industrial environment.
2. To prepare students to become professionals, who practice their trade ethically and with a
strong sense of responsibility to the community.
3. To prepare students for independent life-long learning, and (as applicable) success in graduate
studies.
4. To prepare students to be good technical communicators.
5. To give students design experiences as individuals and within teams.
Updated: December 6, 2002
C.
ME Program Educational Outcomes
Note: Outcomes are things that can be assessed by a given course.
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 results
C. An ability to design a system, component, or process to meet the desired needs
D. An ability to function on multidisciplinary teams
E.
An ability to identify, formulate and solve engineering problems
F.
An understanding of professional 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
I.
A recognition of the need for and an ability to engage in life-long learning
J.
A knowledge of contemporary issues
K. An ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary
engineering practice
5
To prepare students to be good
technical communicators.
x
x
5
To give students design experiences as
individuals and within teams.
J
K
An ability to use the techniques, skills,
and modern engineering tools
necessary engineering practice
4
I
A knowledge of contemporary issues
x
H
A recongition of the need for and an
ability to engage in life-long learning
x
G
The broad education necessary to
understand the impact of engineering
solutions in a global and societal
context
To prepare students for independent
life-long learning, and (as applicable)
success in graduate studies.
F
An ability to communicate effectively
3
E
An understanding of professional ethical
responsibility
To prepare students to become
professionals, who practice their trade
ethically and with a strong sense of
responsibility to the community.
D
An ability to idnetify, formulate and
solve engineering problems
2
C
An ability to function on multidisciplinary
teams
To prepare students with the
appropriate breadth and depth of
technical knowledge necessary to work
effectively as a Mechanical Engineer in
an industrial environment.
B
An ability to design a system,
component, or process to meet the
desired needs
1
A
An ability to design and conduct
experiments, as well as to analyze and
interpret results
A.
An ability to apply knowledge of
mathematics, science and engineering
ME Program
Objectives
II. How do we Accomplish these Goals?
ME Program Educational Objectives Mapped to ME Outcomes
ME Program Outcomes
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
6
B.
ME Program Non-ME Courses Outcomes Matrix
Non-ME
Required
Courses
Outcomes
A
sci
B
C
exptl
design
D
team
E
p-fml
Engr 100
Chem 112
x
x
F
ethic
comm
G
H
br-ed
I
lf-ln
ct-iss
J
x
x
x
x
x
K
m-tls
x
Engl 160
x
x
Engl 161
x
x
Math 180
x
Math 181
x
Math 210
x
Math 220
x
Phys 141
x
x
x
Phys 142
x
x
x
Phys 244
x
x
Humanities El.
x
x
Social Sc. El.
x
x
CEMM 201
x
x
CEMM 203
x
x
CEMM/ME 261
x
x
CS 108
x
ECE 210
x
IE 201
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Non-ME El.
7
C.
ME
Required
Courses
Mechanical Engineering: ME Courses Outcomes Matrix
Outcomes
A
sci
B
C
exptl
design
ME 150/250
x
x
ME 205
x
x
ME 210
x
ME 211
x
ME 308
x
ME 318
x
ME 320
x
ME 321
x
ME 325
x
ME 341
x
ME/IE 380
x
x
ME396
x
x
ME 428
x
ME 447
x
D
team
x
E
p-fml
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
comm
x
x
x
x
x
F
ethic
G
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
K
m-tls
x
x
x
J
ct-iss
x
x
x
x
I
lf-ln
x
x
x
H
br-ed
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
ME Tech. El.
8
III. How do we Monitor how well are we doing and Update
the Program?
A.
ME Program Constituents
To determine how well we are doing as educators to achieve the objectives of the ME Program,
we have put in place a system to obtain input from the various constituent groups for the ME
Program. The groups consist of industry representatives, students, alumni, faculty, and an
academic peer group.
These groups provide input in various ways. This information is gathered over the course of the
academic year and a report is submitted at the beginning of the Fall semester for review by the
various groups. Opinions for change are submitted formally by the various groups and
discussion for curriculum change is initiated. This process is identified as five of the items from
the two loops of EC2000 (indicated as I, II, III, IV, V in Figure 1). Changes in these items will
be based on the evaluation of the assessment criteria and the input from our constituencies.
Students Input from the students comes in many such as survey, tests, and personal
communication. In addition, an undergraduate student committee was formed to give a group of
student an opportunity to interact with the faculty in formal committee setting. This committee
was formed in the Spring 2003 semester in order to allow a group of undergraduate students
input on the same documents the faculty use to assess and evaluate the program. This group
consists of 10 juniors and seniors chosen for their interest and leadership qualities. The group is
chaired by the Undergraduate Committee Chairman and meets twice per semester to discuss how
to improve the program and student life.
Alumni- The alumni of the Mechanical Engineering Program are also asked to provide
information about the program through surveys and personal communication.
Faculty Faculty will provide input through faculty meetings that are held monthly during the
academic year and ABET issues are a permanent agenda item for each meeting. Each
November, a special faculty meeting will be held to review the program and potential changes
for improvement (Faculty Program Review Meeting). In addition, the Undergraduate Committee
is in charge of examining and proposing all curriculum changes, course introductions or
revisions, petitions for any minor changes to the curricula, evaluation of transfer credits, and any
other matters related to the undergraduate program. This committee meets twice per semester.
Industry The majority of our input from industry comes from our departmental Industrial
Advisory Board (IAB). Each member will be given a copy of this report. The members are
outstanding professionals representing a broad range of industrial firms. They include Abbott
Laboratories, Boeing, DePuy Orthopaedics (a Johnson & Johnson Company), Gas Technology
Institute, Ingersoll International, LMS International, Tool and Manufacturing Association,
Caterpillar, Exelon, and UOP. Two additional members represent Argonne National Laboratory
9
and Georgia Institute of Technology. The Industrial Advisory Board meets twice per year to
discuss teaching and research aspects of our program.
Academic Peers- Every three to five years, a group of distinguished faculty from other
universities is brought in to review the ME Program. This group provided a written External
Review Report about the ME program and provide recommendations.
B.
ME Program Assessment Process
At the start of the fall semester, the results of the various surveys from the previous year are
compiled, reviewed, and summarized by the Chair of the ME Program Assessment Committee.
These summaries are then circulated to the members of the Undergraduate Committee. The
results are discussed in regularly scheduled meetings of the Undergraduate Committee, and
recommendations for program improvement (e.g., curricular changes, new course changes, etc.)
are developed. These recommendations are presented to the Faculty, IAB, and the UG Student
Advisory Committee for discussion and approval. Based on this input, the UG Committee
makes appropriate changes and presents them to faculty during the Faculty Program Review
Meeting for discussion and approval. Then, the Education Policy Committee of the College of
Engineering examined and approves the changes.. Next, approval is requested from Senate
Committee on Educational Policy (University level). The last step for final approval and
incorporation into the university catalog requires approval by the UIC Faculty Senate. In
addition, courses that can be taken by graduate and undergraduate students must also be
approved the Graduate College Executive Committee.
Further details on the various committees that provide input in the EC 2000 Evaluation process
are given here:
Outcomes
Required to
Achieve
Objectives
Educational
Objectives
II
I
How Outcomes
will be Achieved
III
Evaluate/Assess
VII
How Outcomes
will be Assessed
IV
Input from
Constituencies
VIII
Formal
Instruction
Student
Activities
VI
Establish Indicators that
Objectives are Being
Achieved
V
Figure 1 ABET EC2000 Evaluation Loop
10
C.
ME Program Assessment Tools
UPdate text
Students:
1) Senior Exit Survey Results (EBI plus additional questions) (May)
2) Undergraduate Student Advisory Board
3) E-mails to Undergraduate Director
4) Outcome Assessment (May)
5) Outcome Directed Quizzes (Outcomes F & J, Ethics and Contemporary Issues) (Spring)
Alumni:
6) Alumni Survey (2003) every three years (Spring)
Faculty:
7) Faculty Meetings
8) UG Committee
9) Faculty Survey (Spring)
10) Faculty attend ABET Workshops (Spring)
Industry:
11) IAB Meetings/Discussions (Spring and Fall)
12) IAB Survey (Spring)
Academic Peers:
13) External Review Report (Spring)
14) Professionals working with Co-Op Students and Corporate Judges for Expo
IV. How Well are we Doing?
A.
Students
The students in the ME Program were very active the 2003-2004. Some highlights of the year
include student group run events such as Seminar Series, off campus visits, a “game day” to
encourage student and faculty interaction, and a FLAMOBILE (race car) competition for the
students. See the Appendix (page 27) and more detail about what the student organizations did
over the past year to make the UIC ME Program better.
Senior Exit Survey Results (EBI plus additional questions)
EBI Engineering Exit Survey (Senior Exit)
Results of the EBI Senior Exit Survey were generally favorable towards the ME program
compared to other comparative ME programs around the country. The amount of information
provided by EBI is substantial and only the results regarding ABET questions are provided here.
Results are broken down by questions that correspond to each ME program outcome as well
questions regarding facilities. These results are shown compared to six specific University
11
Programs, our corresponding Carnegie Class, and all the Universities that had an EBI survey (61
programs). The six specific universities are: Northwestern U., U. of Texas at Austin, U. of
Wisconsin-Madison, U. of Virginia, U. of Notre Dame, U. of San Diego. General comments on
facilities were that the computer resources were very poor comparatively. In addition,
laboratories were considered poor. The UIC ME program had good response for ABET
questions compared to other universities. For 7 of the 22 questions, UIC was in the top half of
these institutions (average rank among the seven program was 3.8). Areas that need
improvement are outcomes G and K (G-An ability to communicate effectively; and K-an ability
to use the techniques) as our program finished in the bottom 10 institutions for 5 of the 22
questions. Within the comparison group, we were always 6th or higher out of 7 and only 6th for 3
of the 22 questions. All three of these questions were related to computing resources (Detailed
EBI tables are provide in the Appendix pages 28 and 29)
The Senior Exit survey also examined the two parameters about the required courses for the ME
Program. Each student gave a score from 1 to 5 to assess the importance of a given course and
how well it was taught. This is intended to help identify courses that may not be considered
important as well as those which were poorly taught. The results showed the lowest scores of
importance were for Phys 244, Eng 100, CS 108, IE 201 (score  3.0, Average value 4.0, see
Figure 2). Courses that were thought to be poorly taught include IE201, ME 380, Phys 244,
Math 220, CEMM 203,and ME 447 (score  3.3, average 3.8).
Importance (Avg=4.0)
Well Taught (Avg=3.8)
Mechanical Engineering
4
3
2
ME 447
ME 428
ME 396
ME 380
ME 341
ME 325
ME 321
ME 320
ME 318
ME 308
ME 250
ME 211
ME 210
IE 201
ME 205
ECE 210(EECS 210)
CEMM 261
CS 108(EECS 170)
CEMM 203
CEMM 201
PHYS 244
ENGR 100
PHYS 142
PHYS 141
MATH 220
MATH 210
MATH 181
ENGL 161
MATH 180
0
ENGL 160
1
CHEM 112
Score (1-low,5-high)
5
Figure 2 Senior Exit Survey to determine for given course its importance and how well taught
(2002-2003)
Insert Exit Survey results for 03-04, 04-05, 05-06
Undergraduate Student Advisory Board
The student board met 5 times during Fall and Spring 2003 to give comments on the design of
the new UG Study Room (opened Spring 2004), course requirement for computer programming,
12
and new questions to add for UG Senior Exit Survey. A summary of the committee’s comments
about the computer programming courses is given here and details are given in the Appendix
(pages 30-36). A photo of the students is given in Figure 3.
Figure 3. 3rd Row: Prof. William Worek (Department Head), James McCoskey (ME Junior),
Prof. Francis Loth (USAB Faculty Chair, UG Director), Prof. Thomas Royston (Associate
Department Head), 2nd Row: Salomon Mercado (IE Senior), Steven Spentzas (ME Junior), Jason
Wennerberg (PTS President, ME Senior), 1st Row: Blaise Steele (USAB Student Co-Chair, IIE
President, IE Senior), Samantha Steinberg (USAB Student Chair, ASME President, ME Junior),
Anita Ramirez (ME Senior), Art Wildula (ME Junior)
Insert photos for 04-05, 05-06 (frank has these )
Summary Statement- Samantha Steinberg, USAB Chair
In response to the question “What is the most useful computer science/programming requirement
for mechanical and industrial engineering undergraduates?” the Undergraduate Advisory
Committee would like to provide the following feedback on the current curriculum offerings:


FORTRAN or CS108 is not a favorable programming or computer science
requirement for MIEs. Feedback was uniform that FORTRAN is outdated and utilizes
an unnecessarily complex syntax. It is not found to be particularly helpful with the
MIE curriculum and is not necessarily pertinent to most elementary engineering jobs.
C is a favorable programming language option and should be offered freely to
engineers in the program.
However, outside the current curriculum offerings, the Undergraduate Advisory Committee
would make the following recommendation regarding potential computer science curriculum
changes. The committee members believe that the computer science courses as currently offered
can be greatly improved upon. Committee members agreed that a basic understanding of
computer languages and programming syntax is necessary, however, because of the limited time
13
allotment in the MIE curriculum for programming class it is unreasonable to assume that
engineers will be able to develop a deep understanding of any specific programming language or
even a basic understanding of the number of languages they may eventually utilize in the work
place. It was therefore highly recommended that department investigate the option of providing a
general “Programming for Engineers” course that focuses on the general commonalities among
all common programming languages and in particular the basics of the C language. The
committee would recommend that this course utilize MATLAB as its programming interface.
MATLAB allows students to learn basic programming syntax and C language. In addition,
MATLAB would allow the course to have a strong secondary emphasis on linear algebra, which
is currently not required for MIE undergraduates. This would be particularly helpful to MIE
students who are expected to have a thorough understanding of both Linear Algebra and
MATLAB for many required courses.
E-mails to Undergraduate Director
Two e-mails that are noteworthy discuss the lack of computer facilities and the need for a
required course in Dynamics Systems and Control Theory (see Appendix pages 36-39).
Outcome Assessment
This assessment is conducted by the College of Engineering at UIC. The students survey results
are available for the 2002-2003 year and are given below in Figure 4. Results for current year
2003-2004 will be available in the Fall of 2004. Student Course Outcome Assessment Survey
form is given in the Appendix (page 40) along with figures that detail the results on outcomes Ean ability to identify, formulate and solve engineering problems, F-An understanding of
professional ethical responsibility; J-a knowledge of contemporary issues, K-an ability to use the
techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary in engineering practice. In general,
students in the ME program rate their ability in the four areas as 4.0 (5.0= “strongly agree” and
1.0=”strongly disagree”) for each statement that that indicates that the student has this ability.
The results show that students in ME program compare well with the students in other programs
within the college of engineering. In addition, students typically gave higher evaluations in the
later courses (4xx verses 2xx and 3xx), which is to be expected as the students developed a
greater understanding for these issues.
Outcome Directed Quizzes (Outcomes F & J, Ethics and Contemporary Issues)
Two quizzes were administered to a required course (ME380) on the subject of Ethics and
Contemporary Issues. An example of quiz is given in the Appendix (page 41). The results show
that the percentage of our students that can respond in a coherent and reasonable manner to
questions about ethics and contemporary issues is 93 and 86%, respectively. This idea came
from the ASME Education Conference.
Think and talk about this?
14
Figure 4 Assessment Survey Results for Outcomes E, F, J, K
replace with new data from EBI!!!!
15
B.
Alumni:
Alumni Survey every three years
The survey of ME Alumni was sent to alumni at the end of November 2002. The survey
instrument sent out to Mechanical Engineering Alumni asked the following questions:
Mechanical Engineering Alumni, please indicate if you agree or disagree with the
statements below. Answer each in comparison to your peers.





The UIC-ME program prepared me to work effectively as a Mechanical Engineer in an
industrial environment.
The UIC-ME program prepared me to be a professional, to practice ethically and with a
strong sense of responsibility to my community.
The UIC-ME program prepared me for independent life-long learning, and (as
applicable) success in graduate studies.
The UIC-ME program prepared me to be a good technical communicator.
The UIC-ME program provided me with design experiences as an individual and within
teams.
The ME Program, like all programs in the College of Engineering, evaluated the achievement of
the program objectives using “generic College of Engineering process” mentioned above. The
one weakness cited above, the lack of systematic department-level data collection, is addressed
here. In response to this program weakness cited for the ME Program, we have begun
implementation of a more comprehensive and mature process to acquire the necessary data for
the ME Program. In 2005-2006, we are evaluating the ME program objectives using a
department-administered phone survey. The results of the phone survey are disseminated to our
constituent groups – the Industrial Advisory Board, the Undergraduate Student Advisory Board,
and the Faculty-UG Committee – for review, comment, and solicitation of suggested changes.
This is a sequential process in which responses from each group are incorporated at the next
level.
The 2005-2006 Alumni Survey was conducted by phone to alumni who graduated on or before
2002. This insures that each graduate had spent time working as an engineer (in industry or as a
graduate student) and could provide feedback about how well UIC ME Program prepared them.
We attempted to contact 31 graduates of the ME program and were able to get 15 of these to
respond to our survey (for a response rate 48%; note that the ME Program graduates
approximately 40 students annually). The survey consisted of asking the alumni to give a score
from 1 to 5 (1-strongly disagree and 5-strongly agree) to indicate how well they thought the ME
Program helped them to attain the objectives of the ME Program. These objectives are listed
below and on the web site (http://www.me.uic.edu/programs/bsme_objectives.htm).
B.S. in Mechanical Engineering Program Educational Objectives
16
1. To prepare students with the appropriate breadth and depth of technical knowledge necessary
to work effectively as a Mechanical Engineer in an industrial environment.
2. To prepare students to become professionals, who practice their trade ethically and with a
strong sense of responsibility to the community.
3. To prepare students for independent life-long learning, and (as applicable) success in graduate
studies.
4. To prepare students to be good technical communicators.
5. To give students design experiences as individuals and within teams.
In addition, the alumni were asked to give suggestions that they thought might improve the
program in its ability to reach these objectives. The results of this survey are shown in Figure 1.
In general, the responses were near 4.0 for most of the objectives with objectives number 4 and 5
(communication and design experiences) slightly below 4.0. These results are similar to the
results obtained 4 years ago by the College of Engineering survey shown in Figure 2. Note that
the objectives were modified slightly during the time between the two surveys. Additional
feedback was obtained in the form of comments to improve the program. The unedited
responses are listed here:
Alumni Comments on ME Program:

Need better presentation skills (written and oral) to communicate with technical and nontechnical individuals. More team projects and hands-on.

More emphasis on technical writing, oral presentations, and hands on training. Make
undergraduate research and/or intern a requirement. Project management and
engineering economics.

Make COMM 100 part of curriculum.

Require Senior Design as two semesters instead of one.

Improve LAB. More emphasis on writing and oral presentations.

The standard curriculum at UIC did touch on the concept of design, but it lacked realworld experience. I didn't really participate in any of the engineering societies' events or
take up research projects and that may have been the reason for it all. Only after working
for some time, I have picked up enough good skills in design to make me very effective
at my position. Continue to hire and retain talented and effective instructors. Promote
professional life outside of UIC. Support and make graduate programs the most desirable
in the nation.

More applicable classes (hands on training)... Controls, manufacturing classes, HVAC.

Encourage and/or provide UG students w/research opportunities.

More application, less theory…HANDS ON

More emphasis on project with design elements- can you add to every/many courses?

Manufacturing class is good…hands on. Second hands on course.

More emphasis on technical writing and oral presentations.
17

Lacks community. Students come and go. Student learn based on what HE/SHE inputs.
Do not blame THE school. Accent our positive highlights…groups, clubs, depts. Show
resources... microfabircation lab, scanning and tunneling, virtual reality lab, etc. Student
moral (rumors) should be changed/proved wrong.

This is based on the information from the plot in Figure 1 that shows alumni feedback
about the objectives.
Score (1-disagree, 5-agree)
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
1. Prepared students
with the appropriate
breadth and depth of
technical knowledge
necessary to work
effectively as a
Mechanical Engineer
in an industrial
environment.
5. Gave students
2. Prepared students 3. Prepared students 4. Prepared students
to be good technical desgin experiences as
for independent lifeto become
individuals and within
communicators.
long learning, and (as
professionals, who
teams.
practice their trade applicable) success in
graduate studies.
ethically and with a
strong sense of
responsibility to the
community.
Figure 1 Response to Alumni Survey for the ME Program taken by the Department of
Mechanical and Industrial Engineering 2006.
18
ME (57 responses, Avg=4.3)
Score (1-disagree,5-agree)
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
prepared me well to work prepared me well to be a
effectively as a ME in an
professional, to practice
industrial environment
ethically and with a strong
sense of responsibiilty to
my community
prepared me well for
independent life-long
learning, asd (as
applicable) success in
graduate studies
prepared me well to be a
good technical
communicator
provied me with good
design experiences as an
individual and within
teams
Figure 2 Response to Alumni Survey for the ME Program at UIC taken by the College of
Engineering in 2002.
ME Program Plan for Utilizing the Alumni Surveys
The Alumni Surveys will now be carried out each year by our department rather than the college.
This way we can ensure the consistency of the data and the timeliness of acquiring the data. In
order to resolve the weakness in the process by which our program objects are reviewed and
revised, the consistency and timeliness of the data will be critical. The plan we have outlined for
review/revision of the ME Program Objectives is shown below.
ME Program Objectives Review Process
Fall Semester

Phone survey of alumni at least three years past graduation.
Spring Semester
Early-February

Send survey data and comments to the Industrial Advisory Board.
Early-March

Industrial Advisory Board provides feedback and proposes changes to
objectives/curriculum.

Send survey data and comments and Industrial Advisory Board feedback to the
Undergraduate Student Advisory Board.
19
Mid-March

Undergraduate Student Advisory Board provides feedback and proposes changes to
objectives/curriculum.

Send Survey Data and Comments along with Industrial Advisory Board Feedback and
Undergraduate Student Advisory Board Feedback to the Faculty-Undergraduate
Committee.
Early-April

Faculty-Undergraduate Committee provides feedback and proposed changes to
objectives/curriculum and presents this finding at a faculty meeting. Final
recommendations are either approved or rejected by the faculty.
This Program Objectives review process is conducted in parallel with the review of the program
outcomes. For clarity, the process for the program outcomes is not described in this response as
it was described in the previous response.
As described in the previous response, some novel ideas of how to improve the review of the
objectives were presented at the ASME ABET Workshop held in San Diego, CA held March
11th, 2005. Professor Loth, the Department Undergraduate Director, attended this workshop.
Professor Loth has attended the ASME sponsored ABET Workshop each year for three years in
a row and found it quite helpful in interpreting the goals of the ABET review process and how it
relates to the assessment process.
C.
Faculty:
Faculty Meetings
Faculty provides input through faculty meetings that are held monthly during the academic year
and ABET issues are a permanent agenda item for each meeting. Each November, a special
faculty meeting will be held to review the program and potential changes for improvement
(Faculty Program Review Meeting). See Minutes of Faculty Meeting in Appendix (page 42-45).
UG Committee
This committee oversees all changes in the curriculum and helps guide the assessment process.
Faculty Survey
The faculty survey was submitted by 17 faculty members (Spring 2004). The results showed the
two lowest scores of importance were for ME 250 and ME 318 (see Figure 6).
20
6
Course Importance
5
4
3
2
1
M
E
2
M 05
E
2
M 10
E
2
M 11
E
2
M 50
E
3
M 08
E
3
M 18
E
3
M 20
E
3
M 21
E
3
M 25
E
3
M 41
E
3
M 80
E
3
M 96
E
4
M 28
E
44
7
0
Figure 6 UIC Faculty Survey of Course Importance (required courses)
repeat after changes are in place
Faculty attend ABET Workshops
In 2002-2003, two faculty members (Francis Loth, Undergraduate Director and David He)
attended the ASME/ABET EC2000 Workshop on Sunday November 17, 2002 at the 2002
ASME Congress in New Orleans. This information of this workshop was then summarized to
the entire faculty in an effort to provide more information about the ABET EC2000 requirements
such that we can better meet the needs of our program’s constituencies. In 2003-2004, one
faculty member (Francis Loth, Undergraduate Director) attended the ASME/ABET EC2000
Workshop at the ASME Mechanical Engineering Education Conference held March 5-9, 2004,
in Clearwater Beach, Florida.
update with Scott, Darabi, Manaf...
D.
Industrial Advisory Board:
IAB Meetings/Discussions (twice per year)
All IAB meetings have an ABET ME Program presentation. This is followed by discussion on
the current curriculum and how we can improve it to better prepare our student for industrial jobs
in the greater Chicago area.
21
IAB Survey
Five IAB members responded to a survey to assess the level of importance for ME program
required courses. The results showed the four lowest scores of importance were for ME 308,
318, 320, 380 (see Figure 7).
6
Course Importance
5
4
3
2
1
IE
2
M 01
E
2
M 05
E
2
M 10
E
2
M 11
E
2
M 50
E
3
M 08
E
3
M 18
E
3
M 20
E
3
M 21
E
3
M 25
E
3
M 41
E
3
M 80
E
3
M 96
E
4
M 28
E
44
7
0
Figure 7 UIC MIE Industrial Advisory Board Survey of Course Importance (required courses)
input new results after Fall meeting
22
E.
Academic Peer Review:
External Review Report
This report was made by an External Visiting Committee in Spring 2004 and was required by
IBHE. Overall message of the report is positive however, there is a recommendation to hire
more faculty in order to maintain or improve the quality of the ME program. The summary of
the report is given below. It was prepared by Adrian Bejan, Chair, Duke University, John R.
Howell, University of Texas, Austin, Allan T. Kirkpatrick, Colorado State University
External Review Report -- Executive Summary
The committee visited the Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering (MIE) on
March 22-23, 2004. During the visit, the committee met with most of the faculty, including
untenured faculty, approximately 10 graduate students, one undergraduate student,
approximately 15 staff members, and UIC administrators at several levels. The visit was very
well organized. The background materials provided to the committee were numerous and very
useful.
The Department is already noted nationally and internationally as a dynamic group with
points of excellence and great visibility in journal editorial leadership, thermal/fluid sciences,
mechanics, design, and manufacturing/industrial research.
The Department is continuing to strengthen graduate research and teaching activities to
improve its position, and to complement efforts devoted to undergraduate education. The
Department aspires to be among the top research mechanical engineering departments in the Big
Ten.
The staff is competent, has high morale, and is very supportive of the students, faculty and
administration of the Department. The administration has faced some difficult decisions due to
budget considerations.
The Department is suffering greatly from a major reduction in the number of faculty, lack
of pay raises and, generally, loss of resources due to recent budget cuts. These factors are
harming the ability of a very productive department in many ways, including:
 A perception by faculty that a program that was improving rapidly has now at best
reached a plateau and may be in for a serious decline if even a few of the remaining
faculty should seek greener pastures.
 A complaint by graduate students that the breadth and quality of the graduate curriculum
have been impacted negatively by the need for the remaining faculty to cover the required
undergraduate course offerings.
The review committee believes that it is critical that additional faculty be hired as soon as
possible. This will not only reverse a rapidly developing negative situation, but will go a long
way toward improving faculty morale and perceptions, and will help to retain productive faculty
who might otherwise contemplate leaving the department.
As the present Dean is retiring, the new Dean should be made aware of this situation and
should request and be allowed to hire a sufficient number of faculty to reverse this serious
reduction. Additionally, the no-cost funding arrangement for supporting the Bioengineering
Department, as well as the two departments (computer Science and ECE) split from the earlier
department should perhaps be revisited and additional resources made available so that support
for these successful programs need not be taken from existing College funds. The new Dean
might wish to address this issue as well as the need for new faculty.
23
1. Are the faculty members of the department well qualified and recognized in their field(s)?
The faculty are exceptionally well-qualified in their fields. Many were well known to the
Review Committee before the campus visit. A number of graduate students stated that they
came to the ME Department because of the reputations of individual faculty.
2.
Are faculty publications appearing in quality (peer-reviewed) journals?
The faculty publish in top-quality international journals in their fields.
3. Is the scholarly productivity of the faculty indicative of an active faculty?
The scholarly productivity is on a par with faculty in Big Ten departments.
Professionals working with Co-Op Students and Corporate Judges
This assessment is conducted by the College of Engineering at UIC. The students survey results
are available for the 2002-2003 year and are given below in the table. Results for current year
2003-2004 will be available in the Fall of 2004. Outcome Assessment Survey form for
Professionals who worked with Co-Op students is given in the Appendix (page 46) that assess
outcomes A-An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science and engineering, C-An
ability to design a system, component, or process to meet the desired needs; E-an ability to
identify, formulate and solve engineering problems; F-An understanding of professional 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 knowledge of
contemporary issues, K-an ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools
necessary in engineering practice. In general, professionals rated the ME students ability in these
areas between 3 and 4.0 out of 5.0 where 5.0 corresponded to “strongly agree” for each statement
that that indicates that the student has this ability. The results show that students in ME program
compare well with the students in other programs within the college of engineering.
Improvement could be made for outcome A, C and J.
Another assessment survey was
conducted by Corporate Judges during the Expo-2003 (Exposition of UG Senior Design
Projects). These surveys covered the same outcomes as the Professionals working with Co-Op
students except for outcome E (see Appendix for details page 47). In general, the corporate
judges rated the ME students ability in these areas between 3.5 and 5.0 (5.0= “strongly agree”
and 1.0=”strongly disagree”) for each statement that that indicates that the student has this ability
(see table below).
24
25
V.
Changes Made
A.
Added a course in Dynamics Systems and Control
These changes have been discussed since the 2000-2001 academic year and were finally put into
place this year. The faculty had numerous discussions on this topic. Information compiled and
presented by Professor Royston is given in the Appendix (page 448-50). A letter from a former
student is also given in the Appendix (page 38) encouraging the addition of a controls course as a
required course. In addition, the second course in Fluid Dynamics (ME318) scored the lowest in
“importance factor” for the faculty and IAB course important survey (see Figures 6 and 7). A
course entitled Dynamics Systems and Control (ME312) is now required and replaces the second
course in Fluid Dynamics (ME318). In order to cover more of the fluid dynamics topics in the
first course in Fluid Dynamics (ME211), one credit hour was added. This credit was removed
from the Senior Design course (ME396).
B.
Two weeks (6 hours) of instruction for Linear Algebra added
Two weeks (six hours) of Linear Algebra instruction was added the Engineering Dynamics
Course (ME210). This was partially in response to comments from ABET and from comments
by students and faculty. This was effective in Fall 2003. Discussion is continuing about adding
even more instruction on linear algebra to the program.
C.
Comprehensive Process to update Computer Facilities
A comprehensive process is in place to update the departmental computer facilities each year so
that the facilities will be completely upgrade every three years. Faculty, Industrial Advisory
Board and e-mail from student were important assessment factors in this decision to improve
computer facilities. The EBI survey also identified computer resources as an area that needed to
be strengthened.
D.
Modified CS109 to include MATLAB
The Computer Science Department has modified the CS108 - Fortran course, which our ME
Program students take, to include two weeks of MATLAB instruction in response to our request.
Faculty and UG Student Advisory Board were important inputs in this process. This will be
available to our students in the Fall 2004. A new course, CS 109 - C with MATLAB, will also be
evaluated to provide additional programming options to students.
26
VI. Future Changes
A.
Curriculum Update
Linear Algebra
Maybe Should add even more instruction for Linear Algebra. The Engineering Graphics and
Design course (ME250, 3 credit hrs) has not been considered important by the students or faculty
during the past and maybe this should changed to teach linear algebra and MATLAB. Many
students and professor have been interested in more MATLAB. Inadequacy of linear algebra
instruction was noted by ABET and while 2 weeks of instruction was added in ME210, two
weeks may not be enough.
Design Course Sequence
A more organized progression of design courses was discussed. Michael Scott has ideas on this.
Several Course Changes
See e-mail from Professor Centinkunt below for additional ideas on several courese.
Frank,
Please share the following suggestions w/ Undergraduate committee -1. CEMM 261 as 2 credit hours (10 weeks course in a 15 week semester system) sounds
bad.
We need to make this a regular 3 credit hour course. My argument is what is next--- a 5
week course for 1 credit ? We should keep things clear and straight forward. Update our
curriculum with changing times... Take away 1 credit from ME 320 or ME 321. What is so
special about these two courses that demand 4 credit anyway ?
2. CS 108 : CS 107 should be automatically accepted as alternative. No need for petition.
3. We are not requiring any Electronics Course: We should require ECE 340 - Electronics I.
Think about it -- every practicing engineer who needs to measure something, or control
something, must deal with electronics... Even in your home -- oven controls, boiler controls,
washing machine controls etc... The space for that can come from one of the two free Non-ME
electives... 6 credit hours as non-ME free elective may be too much freedom to choose "tenis"
etc.
4. Technical elective should include any COE 300 or 400 level courses, not just limited to ME
courses.
5. The connection of ME 250 and ME 447 into the curriculum is very weak. A student can
take
ME 250 in the second semester (freshman year). It is the only requirement for ME 447 which is
taken in Senior Year. This linkage has to be stronger and has to have stronger ties to the rest
of the courses. ME 250 content should be stronger than just drafting/AutoCAD . Even high
schools offer AutoCAD courses now. As a University, we should offer something more.
6. Introducing ME 312- Dyn. Syst. and Control (Brianno is working on this). Fluid Mechanics II
is a candidate to be moved out of required category to technical electives for this.
I think we should slowly adapt our curriculum so that it is very similar to the best schools. We
27
should not say "that is the way we have been doing for years, and that is the way it will be..."
Regards, Sabri
Suggestions were also made to replace English 2 with a technical writing course.
Suggestions were made to add a Machine Design Component course (book by Shigley) replace
English 2 with a technical writing course.
Should we replace IE201 with IE342 to give ME student more exposure to statistics? Also, the
ME321 labs need to be greatly improved.
B.
Update Course Outcomes Matrix Sequence
We should review the current outcomes matched with courses since we may be trying to do too
many outcomes in a given class. In a given academic year, the students should be exposed to
each outcome approximately twice. Thus, we should adjust the matrix to reflect this.
C.
Quizzes for Testing of Outcomes
From the ABET Education Conference in Clearwater Florida (March 2004), it was pointed out
that quizzes that specifically test one outcome are potentially more effective at assessing this
outcome. Thus, we added quizzes to ME380 this past Spring 2004 to assess Outcomes F & J,
(Ethics and Contemporary Issues) which are typically difficult to assess. This should probably
be expanded to other outcomes. One example is to have a test for using calculus to solve
conduction heat transfer problems (ME321). This quiz is graded but does count in their course
graded. It is simple pass/fail to assess if the have developed this skill. This gives us a good way
to focus in on specific skills rather than just the overall course.
D.
Visibility, Student Faculty Interaction, & Environment
We are planning to conduct the 3rd Annual MIE UG reception in the fall again (probably 3rd
week at lunch time on a Wednesday. We plan to do the car competition again (Flamobile) since
it was quite popular. We will have a microphone this time and possible a PowerPoint projector
set up to display info about the various clubs as well as a live video feed of the car and teams up
close. We might consider inviting a guest speaker from a nearby company to address the
students (Don Mclauchlan). MIE Game Day will be in the Spring semester with Ping-Pong and
Chess however instead of a tournament it will simply be a free play for the afternoon. Those
who want to compete will have a tournament late in the afternoon. Also, pizza and drinks will be
sold to raise money or the student groups. Should we invite high school teacher to visit our
department? Video of our facilities (web downloadable, CDs to hand out...). Plan is to add
computers to the UG Study Room (3287SEL). Usage seemed to be quite good last semester.
We could also put tile instead of carpet, possibility a drop ceiling, microwave bolted in, give
access to graduate students. Also, interesting to make another lecture room from one of the
28
existing labs. We are currently compiling information about which High Schools students are
coming from. Can ASME help place student in UG Research position. We need better
awareness of scholarships that are available to the students. Should we have TAs meet in the UG
student room or in a separate room. Should we have a room just for Senior Design students?
Should we be using a web based questionnaire to compile the data more easily?
E.
Requirements and Format of UG Research Technical Elective
A review is necessary to determine if the ME392 should be left in its current format. Do we
want to allow students with a GPA < 4.0 to take the course (many Professor are signing up
student with low GPAs). Should we have a series of presentations and possible and award for
the best research project? This could be considered with the NSF program for UG research.
F.
Course Prerequisites
Suggesting were made by the TAs that the prerequisite are a problem since the student can sign
up even though they don’t have the prerequisites. Maybe we can talk to the university about
blocking this. We should add ME325 to the list of prerequisite for ME341 to be sure they have
the fundamental before taking this class. Currently there are three labs per week before ME 341
but it would be good to add a 4th lab section on Friday afternoon as space is tight. There are five
student maximum per group and equipment is limited (two sets of equipment).
G.
Better connection to our ME Alumni
Should we begin connecting with our ME Program alumni on a more frequent basis and conduct
surveys beyond what the college is doing? Can we get their companies more involved with the
students here on campus.
H.
Course Scheduling
We need a list of courses that will be offered for the coming 4 semester to be posted on the web
by the college. We need better planning about how we will do this. We switched several
courses to three times a week in the past year. Students did not seem to feel this was helpful. It
may be more beneficial to have courses two days a week in order to maximum room usage if we
adopt a MW and TF course offerings. This is typically complicated by laboratory times but we
should have a guide for scheduling process.
29
VII.
Appendix
ME Program Student Organizations
30
Senior Exit Survey Results (EBI plus additional questions)
31
32
Undergraduate Student Advisory Board (2005-2006 year)
(ask Frank but maybe nothing...)
Undergraduate Student Advisory Board (2004-2005 year)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (ME):
General Design Curriculum Recommendations:

The entire ME curriculum needs to be more design based and should include a well
thought out 4-year design core within the ME program. There should be balance
between theory, design and manufacturing.

The current design course offerings need to be revamped and better related to
industry needs

Opportunities for students to gain experience and knowledge in design need to be
improved

Topics covered ME 320 and ME 370 should be expanded and more courses
mandated

Design theory (ME 320 and ME 370) should be coordinated to work in conjunction
with lab-based design curriculum (ME 250 and ME 447)
Specific Recommendations for ME 250/ME 447:

Redesign ME 250 to make more relevant to workplace needs. Add more relevant
and discipline-focused final projects. The course needs to be more structured and
move at a faster pace.

Modify CAD courses (ME250, ME447) into a single required lab-based drafting course
that utilizes AutoCAD for introductory 2D drawings and representations and then a
transition to Pro/E for more complex 3D design and modeling applications.
a. Add a 400 level elective or graduate course covering the lecture portion of
the current ME447 dealing with design utilizing numerical parameters to
optimize design
b. Or offer ME 447 as a lab class covering advanced surface modeling
techniques as well as delving farther into the FEA abilities of the program.
Other Comments re: ME 250:

ME 250 should be made a lab course.

As is currently, ME 250 should have a test-out procedure or should be a technical
elective and should not be a pre-requisite for ME 447.
Math and Programming Recommendations:
33

Add a FULL required semester of linear algebra (math 310) or add a required 200level ME course covering linear algebra and MATLAB that will better prepare students
for advanced coursework (a prerequisite to ME 428)

Change Fortran CS108 from the required programming language in favor of a C
based language that is more frequently used in industry.

CS108 should include Maple or Matlab
Physics III recommendations:

Remove Physics III from the requirements and offer as a technical elective
Vibrations recommendation:

Expand ME308 to cover introductory wave theory including light and optics, which
are only currently covered in Physics III, and add a weekly credit hour of an
organized lab session.
Lab recommendations:

Improve labs throughout the department
a. This could potentially make ME341 obsolete. Lecture materials from ME341
and ME447 that are not covered in other courses might be moved to ME428

ME 341 Experimental Methods should be a four-credit class.

ME 321 labs should be improved or eliminated.

Fluids I should have at least 5 labs.

Fluids II should have 3-4 labs as well.
General recommendations:

Increase flexibility in program by decreasing department requirements and increases
ME electives. Allow students to personalize degree program.

Condense introductory courses to open up senior level options

Improve the higher-level tech elective selection. Some ideas for tech electives:
-Mechanical Engineering Finite Element
-Rapid Prototyping Development
-Vehicle Dynamics
-Aerodynamics
-Fluid Power Design

There should be a manufacturing class offered in this school with access to the
machine shop. Principles of manufacturing (ME380) only covers theory

CEMM 261 should be included in ME 380 or eliminated.

Make Eng 100 more focused on the engineering program.
34

There is some significant overlap in CEMM 203, CEMM 261 and ME 380 that could be
eliminated to add more instruction in other areas or too add more flexibility to the
curriculum.
Undergraduate Student Advisory Board (2003-2004)
Dear MIE Faculty Advisory Committee,
In response to the question “What is the most useful computer science/programming requirement
for mechanical and industrial engineering undergraduates?” the Undergraduate Advisory
Committee would like to provide the following feedback on the current curriculum offerings:
FORTRAN or CS108 is not a favorable programming or computer science requirement for
MIEs. Feedback was uniform that FORTRAN is outdated and utilizes an unnecessarily complex
syntax. It is not found to be particularly helpful with the MIE curriculum and is not necessarily
pertinent to most elementary engineering jobs.
C is a favorable programming language option and should be offered freely to engineers in the
program.
However, outside the current curriculum offerings, the Undergraduate Advisory Committee
would make the following recommendation regarding potential computer science curriculum
changes. The committee members believe that the computer science courses as currently offered
can be greatly improved upon. Committee members agreed that a basic understanding of
computer languages and programming syntax is necessary, however, because of the limited time
allotment in the MIE curriculum for programming class it is unreasonable to assume that
engineers will be able to develop a deep understanding of any specific programming language or
even a basic understanding of the number of languages they may eventually utilize in the work
place. It was therefore highly recommended that department investigate the option of providing a
general “Programming for Engineers” course that focuses on the general commonalities among
all common programming languages and in particular the basics of the C language. The
committee would recommend that this course utilize MATLAB as its programming interface.
MATLAB allows students to learn basic programming syntax and C language. In addition,
MATLAB would allow the course to have a strong secondary emphasis on linear algebra, which
is currently not required for MIE undergraduates. This would be particularly helpful to MIE
students who are expected to have a thorough understanding of both Linear Algebra and
MATLAB for many required courses.
Please see the comments written below by Jason Wennerberg for a more details explanation of
the benefits of a MATLAB based programming course.
My opinion on the programming requirement is that it really doesn't matter what language you
teach computer programming in. The basics in any programming course are all the same. You
35
have loops, input/output, logical statements, functions, etc.. The only difference between the
languages is specific syntax. This distinction is not even that important since the WAY a
program is written is the important part. That being said I think that FORTRAN is not only
outdated but also unnecessarily complex in terms of syntax. What I think should be taught is a
course based on CS 107 but in the MATLAB language or some other scripting based language.
The course should also include material on matrix operations since MATLAB is used commonly
in industry. Maybe this could be the class that makes up for our lack of a linear algebra
requirement. Once ANY programming language is taught a student can then program in any
language simply by typing 'C tutorial' or the like in google and looking up the specific syntax.
Some good things about MATLAB:
Syntax is not complicated and structure of code is more obvious.
MATLAB .m files can be written to look exactly like C code if one wishes to do more complex
things. Some of the course should still include good old fashion programming and can be done in
C which is now the standard language of computer scientists and anyone else who writes a lot of
code.
MATLAB is being required in many courses undergrads have to take. I had to write MATLAB
code for fluids II and Numerical Methods and use it in ME 320. I also think that a lot of
professors would like to start using it more.
MATLAB is used in the Engineering industry much more often than C or FORTRAN.
MATLAB can be purchased relatively cheaply as a student ($99) and is a very good buy. Also
there is a free version for LINUX called Octave that uses the exact same .m files. FORTRAN
and C compilers for windows are VERY expensive. MATLAB would allow many more students
to work on projects at home and would encourage them to explore things on their own without
worrying about complicated math.
ME's don't seem to be as afraid of MATLAB as of FORTRAN probably because the syntax is
easier.
~Jason Wennerberg
FORTRAN is said to be outdated, but some companies still use it. For engineers there has to be
some requirement for programming, whether it is Fortran or C or some other updated language. I
think a survey from local employers, asking what language they prefer students to have, would
be a good idea. Along with that idea maybe have students in the engineering school wait until
they know what field they will be pursuing, so they can decide what program they will need.
That is a long shot but an idea.
~James McCoskey
I think that we should definitely have some kind of programming coursework in the curriculum,
but I'm not sure that Fortran is the best thing. We use Matlab a lot, so maybe something along
those lines would be more appropriate. But then (I think it was Jason that mentioned it) the idea
of having just a general programming class sounds kind of right. Just to teach people how to
think for programming, and technique, instead of just focusing on one language, that way they
are versatile, and not limited to a certain language.
~Anita Ramirez
36
I think that CS 107 is a more useful class for the IE curriculum, since it gives a better
understanding for the 400-level simulation and automation courses Industrial Engineers are
required to take. Fortran is outdated, but C should focus more on the programming than the
object orientation.
~Blaise Steele III
With regards to the computer science requirement, I believe that c++ is a better language
compared to FORTRAN for engineers here at uic. If we would like to take things to another
level, I think it would be best to create an introductory computing course for engineers. This
course can teach the fundamentals of C++ and object oriented technologies as well as contain a
section on Matlab.
~Steve Spentzas
I think we should move to C. I also think we should replace physics III with linear algebra. I
never used physics III and linear algebra has come up over and over again.
~Salomon Mercado
I think CS107 and CS108 should remain the same except that students should have a choice
between the two. Also CS107 should be C/C++ not Java. I recall an idea of an engineering
programming and matlab class and think would be too much for one class.
The C programming language is a good beginner programming language. It covers date types,
program flow, data input and output. C++ is only different from C in that there are different
functions for text in and out and C++ is object oriented.
There would be too much information in one course to combine matlab and a language such as C
or FORTRAN. It would be better to have a full semester in programming in one language. Once
a student knows one language they can use that knowledge to learn anther. If the introductory
course is used to learn the basics of more than one language then there could be a loss in some
advanced topics.
A reference guide for computer math tools might help students with matlab. The reference guide
might include notes on matrices, matlab, maple, and mathematica. Off the subject the reference
guide could also include tips for using word processors and spreadsheets.
~Matt Hull
I think Fortran should be offered but not required, it is an old language that almost noone uses
anymore. I learned C++ in high school and that shows that they are on the right track. C++ is
much easier and makes more sense and a lot of things are simplified. Fortran is the long way of
doing things. If Fortran is taken out from requirement and replaced by C++ or another
programming class it will have the same effect for teaching but students would like it more. Any
programming class that is taken should teach the way to program and the thought process behind
it. It would be interesting to see what languages other colleges are teaching, then we can see if
we are teaching ancient material.
~Art Widula
37
April 26, 2003
MIE Faculty,
Below is the summary opinion of the MIE Student Advisory Committee to the question of how useful
undergraduate MIE students view the creation of an exclusive MIE study room in SEL.

There was uniform support of the creation of an MIE undergraduate study facility in SEL. Student
expressed that currently no adequate study facilities for MIE students, either individually or for
group work, have been made available to date.
 The students of the MIE Advisory Committee are all part of study groups that they believe would
use the facility a minimum of once a week and some groups expressed that they might utilize the
facility upwards of 25-30 hours per week.
 All students expressed a need for good workspace, which included good lighting and large
worktables. Individual ideas of what constituted good workspace varied by student. Below is a
snapshot review of some suggestions mentioned, both during the committee meeting and below in
emails:
a. Square or round tables sitting 4-6 students
b. Senior project lockers, 5-10
c. Computers
d. Good Work Lighting
e. Sound control
f. Vending Machines
g. Card Key Access
h. Garbage Facilities
i. Couches and end tables
j. Whiteboards
k. Microwave
l. Sound proofing or partitions
 The following were areas of debate or concern:
a. Food policies: Students on the committee were divided regarding food policies. Some
students felt strongly that allowing food in the study area is a great draw, while other
students expressed concern regarding cleanliness and smell.
b. Room Policing and Maintenance: There was considerable concern regarding who would
police the room to prevent theft and vandalism and who would be responsible both
financially and physically for room maintenance. For example, there was considerable
debate as to whether or not the computers should have printers, which may break more
easily and require paper and ink.
Sincerely,
The MIE Student Advisory Committee
I strongly believe that the development of an study room is necessary for both Undergraduate and
graduate students. We are in a necessity to have a place where ME students in general can study. I do
oppose to food consumption in such place and I am pro-study groups. The place should have great
lighting and comfortable size tables. The computers are an excellent idea. I do not think that a card
access is neccesary. It is really expensive and we can utilize that money in more beneficial things such as
scholarships or more computers etc. There must be other way (not as expensive) of taking care of the
computers and others. I propose for all the members of the committee to come up with a design that will
be discussed during a future meeting.
Regards,
Claudya
38
I would like to see a MIE study room setup. I think we should get what is
necessary and nothing outrageous. Computers would be good to have but if we
start getting printer and such, it would become a problem in maintaining.
Round tables are a good idea and we should get 5 or 6 of them. The lockers
are a good idea, but removing two or three of them would free up a good
amount of room that could be used for a couch. If we do decide to allow
food, put a garbage can in there so people would throw the food out when
they are done with it. Overall, I think this room should be finished to our liking.
Art
... as far as the study room goes, I’m sure that would be great provided the word gets out to all the MIE
undergrads (and maybe grads? i know they already have one tho) so they can make full use of it.
I would say go for it.
dan
I think SEL 3287 would be a great room to have the study room in. It certainly is large enough, and is
close enough to ERF to make the location convenient. However, I feel food should be allowed. We are all
in college, and should be able to clean up after ourselves, so food cleanup should not be an issue. The
room is going to need a paint job, and new carpeting. I think four round tables, seating five to six people
each would be fine, but leave the couches there! Some people like to sit by themselves on the
comfortable couches, so they should remain along the walls (new ones should be purchased though). A
microwave wouldnt be a bad idea, although those tend to get messy.
Two computers would be sufficient, and I agree with your idea of printing in the lab down the hall, to lower
the trouble of maintenance by removing a printer. The room should be card access only, exclusively to
MIE students, so the card swipe machine is a must. The chalkboard should stay, and we should get a
new attractive attention-grabbing sign to display the room, and also advertise in ERF and ENGR 100, and
especially at the reception.
Blaise Steele
I think that the MIE study room is a wonderful idea. I believe that if the room is built there would be
enough engineers to make it useful. I think with four or five round tables, 2 or 3 computers, some
computer ports, and maybe a small set of couches, it would be a great place to study.
In regards to the MIE banquet in the beginning of the year, and gaining recognition for the MIE as a
whole, a small competition would be a good attention grabber and gain student support for the program.
Also, I believe that just getting professors to support MIE programs with a few minor announcements
when convenient for them will also raise support.
Steve
This is what we need in the lounge:
- square tables that will seat 4
- padded chairs for the tables
- Couches with coffee tables like in the atrium
- Computers (2 or 3) with printer
- Vending machines, at least one for coffee because what kind of study lounge doesn't have coffee
available.
- white board
39
We should also leave the blackboard in there. Also I think that we should alow eating and drinking and
put the computers in the small room where there won't be any eating or drinking. I can also gaurantee
that at least me and three of my friends would be in there quite a bit. I would bet money that many others
would be there also if we advertise it right (something I have every confidence that you can do).
Jay Wennerberg
The MIE study room is an excellent idea. The people in my study group agree that there is a need for a
study room and they assure me that they would definitely use it. I am in a study group that meets 4-5
times a week for 3-6 hours. The size of our group ranges from 5-10 people. We currently meet in the
Physics Department's TA room, because it is in SEL. SEL is a desirable location, because our classes
and professors a nearby. The MIE study room is a good investment of undergraduate funding that I hope
will be operational by August.
Salomon Mercado
1. The total number of hours I spend per week
doing coursework outside of class is typically:
0-4
5-9
1014
1519
2024
2534
35+
2. The number of hours I spend per week working
at a job that is unrelated to my studies:
0-4
5-9
1014
1519
2024
2534
35+
3. The average number of hours I spend per
week working with the teaching assistants is
typically:
0-4
5-9
1014
1519
2024
2534
35+
1 – Strongly Disagree 2 – Somewhat Disagree 3 – Indifferent 4 – Somewhat Agree 5 – Strongly
Agree
4. I found my major advisor accessible:
1
2
3
4
5
5. I found the time I spent with my major advisor
beneficial in planning my coursework:
1
2
3
4
5
6. I found the UIC computer resources sufficient
for completing academic assignments:
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
7. I found the MIE faculty accessible and helpful:
8. I found the teaching assistants able and
prepared to answer my questions regarding
my coursework:
9. I would greatly benefit if more course materials
were available on the World Wide Web:
10. The computer skills I learned during my
degree have been/will be of great assistance
as a professional:
11. My academic studies at UIC have greatly
enhanced my problem-solving and teamwork
skills:
40
12. My major-required courses were scheduled in
such a way that I was able to graduate
without unnecessary delays:
13. Research opportunities with MIE faculty were
made available to me:
14. I found the required laboratories helpful in
providing hands-on explanations of lecture
materials:
15. Laboratory write-ups and course projects
improved my technical writing skills:
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
16. I am interested in pursuing graduate studies:
E-mails to Undergraduate Director
E-mail from Student discussing need for better Computing Resources
Delivered-To: floth@tigger.cc.uic.edu
From: matt <mhull1@uic.edu>
To: FLoth@uic.edu
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 21:10:13 -0800
Subject: accc computers
Priority: Normal
Organization: school
Reply-to: matt <mhull1@uic.edu>
X-mailer: Phoenix Mail 0.92.08 Standard Edition
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.28 (www . roaringpenguin . com / mimedefang)
Dr Loth,
I talked to several weeks ago about having problems in the computer labs at
school. I have since picked up a used Macintosh and do not rely on the
computer lab.
The computers in the labs hang for about 2 minutes when loading Excel. It
will stall completely if I double click on an excel file and not choose to
open excel from the start menu. At random excel will quit because the N
drive quits responding. I think last year with windows 98, excel was
installed locally and this year with windows XP excel is installed on the
network which is why it talks so long to load and why it crashes.
In previous semesters I have used mathematica for homework and lab
write-ups. This semester tried to use it and it failed to run stating that
the license has expired. I do not know if that software is intended for
the math department and the engineering students are not expected to use
41
it, so they chose not to renew the license.
The Mac's work fine except the network drive is not mapped so I can not get
to my files. I have to email them to myself. The network is preferred;
the floppy is too slow and small. It would be great if they would map the
Unix account to both machines. I can access the Unix account from home
using ssh, the H drive in the accc labs does not allow ssh login from off
campus do I can not finish homework at home. The Mac's do not have an ssh
GUI for transferring files to and from it so again I have to resort to
emailing my files to myself. I asked the accc lab about this and they said
it was a privilege to have to have the network drive and don't seem to care.
After dealing with all of the problems in the computer labs I have been
kicked out twice, once due an accc class in the windows XP labs and once
due to some class in the Mac labs. The people attending the class in the
Mac lab did not look like students from UIC. I had to show one of them
where the room was. They appeared to be community collage students.
With all of these problems in the computer labs I am being to think that
the university does not expect me to do any course work on the computer;
maybe pencil and paper? The accc computer lab is doing a poor job of
providing computer tools, perhaps the college of engineering could get
there own computer labs.
Update 1:
I have tried to connect my laptop to the schools network at the network
terminals and that failed the other day telling me it could not assign an
IP address. I was trying to print my homework to submit. I suppose I will
need to buy my own printer to go with the laptop I had to buy. As an
engineering student I am expected to do some of my homework using word and
excel, usually lab reports. I have tried almost everything to work on lab
reports during school but it all seems to fail.
Update 2:
I have talked to the accc support and they said they are testing something
before mapping the h drive on the Mac's and they will try to put an ssh GUI
client on the Mac's. Perhaps the accc should get their stuff working when
students are not dependent on it, such as the summer semester.
As stated before I have since bought a used laptop. A little costly for
the computer and software.
Matt Hull, Student of mechanical engineering.
42
E-mail from Alumni discussing need for Controls Course
Delivered-To: floth@tigger.cc.uic.edu
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 22:10:16 -0800 (PST)
From: "Farhad K. Mehta" <fmehta@u.washington.edu>
To: Floth@uic.edu
Subject: Hello Prof.!!
Hey Prof. Loth,
Ill try to make this brief...actually i wrote about 5 pages in word this afternoon on this and im
sure your eyes would glaze over if i just cut and paste that into this email box...
So anyway, I was talking with anthony scinto, we were both in your heat transfer class about a
year and a half ago, and he mentioned you were looking for info into how to make UIC students
more employable. I am actually doing a masters at University of Washington right now so my
perspective is of a student in a different school with a very different curriculum.
Basically i have three points i think important.
One is that there really needs to be a stronger attempt at modernizing the curriculum. I think
there is not enough emphasis on using computers to program (C, JAVA), or run programs (i.e.matlab, maple ansys etc...). By the time a student is a senior he/she should be able to use these
tools without any assistance to solve HW problems. For my control systems course i spent last
weekend sitting at a matlab terminal generating plot after plot of a system root loci. This may
seem boring, but this really is the only way to develop intuition into this type of method, and its
pretty unreasonable to ask of someone to do by hand. Engineers should be able to write programs
and use math tools as part of their jobs. The problems they deal with are a lot more involved and
some are impossible to approach without computers.
Second, the dynamics curriculum is in dire need of an overhaul. At U of W (and most schools)
they have a year long mandatory course entitled system dynamics on top of the courses we had at
UIC. My exposure was so patchy that i really feel ill prepared in this area. In the fluids there is a
general theme involving thermo to fluids to heat transfer. This is very logical and reinforces the
material. Your first dynamics course is pretty basic and then you take vibrations and machine
design. Thats really not enough background to do anything useful.
Finally, and i think most importantly, I think that UIC did not challenge me enough. Aside from
the actual curriculum, i think there is generally one thing that you can do to improve the quality
of students. I really think that the professors need to expect more of their students. I think they
need to make their courses harder and cover more material. I know there is a lot of beuracratic
nonsense that i am over looking, but i think that if you just demand more of the students they will
be forced to raise to that level. And if they dont, the least they take away from a course will still
be greater. This stuff is supposed to be hard and thats how you develop a strong intuition.
Anyway, i better stop my ranting now... Seriously though,I think UIC has a really good set of
Professors and that they need to utilized them a little more in dynamics and try to get them to
43
make their courses more challenging. Until students see the correlation between what they are
learning and real world situations they will never be prepared enough, and this requires real
world tools. I hate to criticize UIC unconditionally. It was there that i was able to discover a
love for learning that i never knew i had, and i credit profs like Dr. Shabana, Megaridis, and
yourself for that. Still i wish that i was a little better prepared for what im doing now.
I hope all is well on your end. Right now im trying to get funding (AAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!). I
am getting really interested in Implicit Modeling and there is some really cool research going on
in that area here. I dont know if i ever thanked you for all your help with the letters of
recommendation and all the advice but i am really grateful. I am really happy out here and im
loving all the mountains there are to climb. I hope all this helps. I hate to just criticize, but i
really had a lot to say and i tried to keep it short.
Take care Prof.,
Farhad Mehta
fmehta@u.washington.edu
44
Outcome Assessment
45
Outcome Directed Quizzes (Outcomes F & J, Ethics and Contemporary Issues)
46
Faculty Meeting Minutes
FACULTY MEETING
Thursday, October 23, 2003, 1:30 - 2:30 p.m., 1043 ERF
Present: Professors S. Aggarwal, F. Amirouche, P. Banerjee, K. Brezinsky, S. Cha, S.
Cetinkunt, H. Darabi, D. France, K. Gupta, D. He, C. Lilley, F. Loth, F. Mashayek, C.
Megaridis, W. Minkowycz, I. Puri, T. Royston, L. Saggere, A. Shabana, W. Worek
Excused: Professor F. Litvin, M. Scott
1) The meeting was called to order at 1:35 pm by Prof. William Worek.
2) The minutes of the last faculty meeting held on September 11, 2003 were approved with
minor corrections.
3) Announcements
4) Handout of department announcements was given. It included an item on soliciting ideas
for a list on challenges in nanotechnology. The list is to be used for project ideas to be
submitted to NIST.
5) Prof. Farid Amirouche spoke about the Industrial Advisory Board hosting a seminar by
Richard B. Dyott, Director of Fiber Optic Research, KVH Industries, Tinley Park, on
Nov. 14, 2003.
6) Update: David Miller, President of Illinois Biotechnology Industry Organization, will be
the guest speaker on Nov. 14, 2003.
7) The Mechanical and Industrial Engineering Department is hosting the Paul Chung
Lecture this year. John H. Leinhard, from the University of Houston, has accepted to to
be the guest speaker and scheduling for the lecture is in progress at the moment.
8) Phone charges will be discussed at the next faculty meeting. One idea that was
mentioned was the distribution of phone cards to the faculty.
9) Prof. Ken Brezinsky gave an Executive Committee Report on the committee’s meeting
with the Provost. A summary of some criterias for the selection of a new Dean were
discussed. One focus of the discussion was to increase interaction with the Urbana
campus. Also mentioned was the Provost’s inclusion of a Champaign member on the
selection committee.
10) Prof. Ishwar Puri present Prof. Dino Megaridis an ASME Fellow certificate.
11) A Strategic Planning Committee handout was given and listed some items discussed
during the first meeting. In particular, the Dean wants the department to develop a
strategy plan and part of the planning will be discussed on Nov. 7th.
12) Prof. William Worek spoke about Adjunct Appointments for the department. A number
of adjunct appointments were approved.
13) Prof. Frank Loth spoke about the Undergraduate Program
14) A summary of the EBI UG Student Survey was presented. A vote on changing the
programming languages taught for CS 107 and CS 108 courses was conducted.
15) A proposal for cross-listing ECE courses on MEMS topics with ME has been approved.
16) Prof. Tom Royston is working on a proposal for a controls course and this will be
discussed during the next meeting.
47
a. Prof. Suresh Aggarwal spoke about the Graduate Program in the department.
17) A handout on the overseas program with Torino was given.
18) A BS/MS degree for the MIE department was mentioned and will be discussed at the
next MIE department meeting.
19) A Graduate Student Seminar Series was announced and strong faculty support and
participation has been requested.
20) No old business was discussed.
21) New Business: The focus for the faculty retreat is on strategic planning for the
department.
22) The meeting was adjourned at 3:10 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Carmen Lilley
48
FACULTY MEETING
Thursday, Nov. 13, 2003, 1:30 - 2:30 p.m., 1043 ERF
Present: Professors S. Aggarwal, F. Amirouche, K. Brezinsky, S. Cha, S. Cetinkunt, D. He, C.
Lilley, F. Loth, F. Mashayek, C. Megaridis, W. Minkowycz, T. Royston, H. Ryoo, L. Saggere,
M. Scott, A. Shabana, W. Worek
Excused: Professor P. Banerjee, H. Darabi, D. France, K. Gupta, F. Litvin, I. Puri,
1. The meeting was called to order at 1:40 pm.
2. The minutes of the last faculty meeting held on Oct. 23, 2003 were approved.
3. Presentation and Discussion of the WISEST Program by Claudia Morrissey. Handout was
given for review.
4. Undergraduate Program presented by Prof. Frank Loth. After a lively discussion, a
curriculum change for the MIE undergraduate course requirements was approved. A
redistribution of credit hours in the current ME curriculum was approved so that a new
required course on Dynamic Systems and Control, under the course number ME 312, could
be established. The changes that were approved are as follows:
 ME 211 was increased one credit hour and one lecture will be added a week to the course. (3
hours will increase to 4 hours)
 ME 318 will no longer be a required course. (3 hrs that are allocated now to ME 312)
 ME 396 will have one credit hour reduced. (5 hrs reduced to 4 hours)
The second curriculum change that was approved was the approval of having a ME 445 and
ME 396 sequence approved as meeting senior design requirements. The purpose is to have a
Fall/Spring semester sequence for an interdisciplinary design project.
5. Announcements: There will be two Faculty meetings in December. The first will be on Dec.
and the second will be on Dec. 10. Chancellor Sylvia Manning will be present at the Dec.
10th meeting.
6. No old business was discussed.
7. No new business was discussed.
8. The meeting was adjourned at 3:21pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Carmen Lilley
49
FACULTY MEETING
Wednesday, Feb 5, 2004, 2:05 – 3:20 p.m., 1043 ERF
Present: Professors, F. Amirouche, P. Banerjee, K. Brezinsky, S. Cetinkunt, S. Cha, H. Darabi,
K. Gupta, D. He, C. Lilley, F. Loth, F. Mashayek, C. Megaridis, W. Minkowycz, T. Royston, L.
Saggere, A. Shabana, W. Worek
Excused: Professor S. Aggarwal, D. France, F. Litvin, I. Puri, M. Scott
2) The meeting was called to order at 2:05 pm.
3) Minutes for Dec. 4, 2003 and Dec. 10, 2003 Faculty Meetings approval with minor
corrections.
4) Prof. William Worek introduced Dr. Shiwoo Lee, the newest department member.
5) Announcements
6) The university has not received information on the budget. The estimated reduction in
budget is 3% for the new fiscal year.
7) The Provost has requested a list from the Dean for the minimum requirements to offer the
Mechanical Engineering and Industrial Engineering program.
8) Prof. Thomas Royston spoke about the department nominations for graduate students to
compete for university fellowships. Five faculty members nominated eight eligible
graduate students. The students were then selected for the fellowships as follows: five
students were nominated for the University Fellowship, one student was nominated for a
diversity fellowship and two students were nominated for an Abraham Lincoln
fellowship.
9) Strategic Planning Committee
10) Prof. Farid Amirouche gave a detailed presentation on the committee’s status for
identifying goals for the department and methods to achieve these goals.
11) A handout was distributed.
12) Prof. Frank Loth spoke about the new curriculum for Mechanical Engineering affecting
new students this fall. The new course in controls will be listed in the curriculum;
however, it will not be offered until the 2005-2006 academic year.
13) No old business was discussed.
14) No new business was discussed.
15) The meeting was adjourned at 3:20 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Carmen Lilley
50
Professionals working with students through Co-Op and Corporate Judges
51
52
Adding Dynamic Systems & Control as a Required Course
Case for Adding ME 312, Dynamics Systems & Control to Core ME UG Curriculum
Prepared by Tom Royston, 9/26/2003
Comment: Dynamic Systems & Control is NOT a “Design” course. Covers systems
modeling issues related to fluid, thermal, electrical, and mechanical elements as well as
transduction between them. System analysis approaches that are not medium-specific.
SOLUTION: New course ME 312. A required 3 hr course. Dynamic Systems & Control.
CONTENT: Laplace Transform; Mechanical, Electrical, Fluid, & Thermal systems modeling;
Energy Conversion; Linear Time & Frequency Domain Analysis; Analysis & Design of
Feedback Control Systems in Time & Frequency Domain.
For UGs it is a prerequisite to ME 412. ME 412 can avoid being watered-down for UGs and
can focus more on classical and modern (state-space) control theory & applications without
having to spend so much time teaching the basics of dynamic systems modeling and analysis.
And, ME 512 could focus on Digital (discrete time) Control – classical & modern (state-space)
approaches.
Possible source of Credit hours:
1) Drop ME 318 (Fluids II), but add 1 hour to ME 211 (Fluids I – so its 4 hrs)? (2)
Average number of credit hours in Fluid Mechanics area for15 listed schools in Top
20 is 3.67 semester hours. (1 hour extra for ME’s … e.g. for the lab?.)
2) Make ME 318 (Fluids II) a 2 hour course or reduce other 4 hour courses to 3 hrs. (1)
3) Drop 1 or 2 hours from ME 396? (1 or 2): Downside: ABET stresses “Design”
4) Drop ME 250, add 1 hour to ME/IE 447 (and call it 347) (2) – but, loss of “Design”
content in curriculum … not good for ABET
53
54