Program Self-Study Report
for Electrical & Computer Engineering (ECE)
Overview: Berkeley is a research university with a broad and diverse environment. The Electrical and Computer
Engineering and Computer Science and Engineering programs of study are offered in a very special context to
students from the top 5% of their high-school graduating classes. The faculty in the EECS Department has an
excellent reputation both nationally and internationally for research and collaboration. This faculty involvement in
information and electronic technology together with highly motivated students pursuing future careers creates
continually evolving interests for which we have developed a flexible course requirement. Feedback from faculty
involvement with students and industry are the key to the success of this flexible structure.
The EECS Department has 83.49 FTE faculty members, divided roughly equally between EE and CS. The faculty
has an unusually high level of direct involvement with industry, government, and professional societies. Many of the
faculty have been recognized for their contributions to the cutting edge of emerging technologies. EECS at Berkeley
is especially known for the collaborative style of projects both among research groups and with technologists in the
information and electronics industry, especially with companies in Silicon Valley. Many of our faculty members
participate in special assessment studies for government agencies such as NAE, NRC, and DARPA; technical
advisory boards for industry; and, for a number of our faculty, through the personal experience of starting
companies. The faculty is strongly interested in both teaching and research, and they continually introduce the latest
research developments and challenges into the courses they teach.
Our reputation and the financial support received from the State make Berkeley an affordable public institution that
attracts an exceptionally talented pool of students. About 2,000 students who are in the top 12% of their high school
class apply, from which the university selects a subset of the 320 most qualified. Approximately 170 of these
students enroll. In addition, under the California Master Plan for Higher Education, approximately 80 students a year
transfer in as juniors from the Junior College System with GPA’s of 3.8 or higher. Also, about 40 students from the
Engineering Undeclared program transfer into EECS as juniors. Approximately 45 Letters and Science students also
transfer into L&S Computer Science as juniors with approximately a 3.0 GPA, as based on grades at Berkeley in
relevant courses. Overall the undergraduates are quite diverse, including 8% international students. However, we
would like to increase the representation of African Americans and women, currently only 1% and 13%,
respectively. In sum, the approximately 83.49 FTE EECS faculty teach and advise about 1,200 of our own
undergraduate constituents each year, 900 of whom are in our Electrical and Computer Engineering (ECE) and
Computer Science and Engineering (CSE) degree programs. In addition, EECS provides courses in computer
science and electronics to several hundred non-majors each year.
Our industry constituents have helped guide and facilitate the development of the ‘hands-on’ and design components
of our curriculum. We have been very fortunate in the last several years to construct and fully instrument a new
undergraduate laboratory for CS 150, Components and Design Techniques for Digital Systems, which is taken by
about 175 students a year. This includes design software and the computers to run it, as well as 20 experiment
stations. At the sophomore level in EE 40, Introduction to Microelectronic Circuits, students can now make
computer automated measurements as well as ‘hands-on’ measurements. For the upper-division circuits and device
classes we now have the capability to measure devices and analyze characteristics. The digital circuit design class
now also has a full suite of layout, extraction, timing, and SPICE simulation tools.
The EECS organizational structure reflects the well-established tradition of shared governance at Berkeley between
the administration and the faculty via the Academic Senate. In this system the degree programs, curriculum and
courses in EECS are subject to faculty committee review through the College of Engineering Undergraduate Study
Committee (CoE UGSC) and approval by formal vote of the faculty in the College of Engineering. The Chair of
EECS is responsible for establishing objectives/policies, managing the course offerings, and evaluating the
instructional quality and outcomes. These responsibilities are delegated by the Chair through the Undergraduate
Study Committee (UGSC), the Scheduling Officer (SO), the Vice-Chair of Undergraduate Matters, the Center for
Student Affairs (CSA), and the Academic Personnel Process (APP). The Chair also appoints special Task Forces
such as those to design the new curriculum, develop key courses, and lead the ABET 2006 Self Study. The faculty
handles policy matters, student advising, petitions, and teaching-performance review. The staff handles scheduling,
data collection, student information services, and outreach. We use the web and email effectively to communicate
program and course information to students, publish course surveys, conduct faculty business, and in making
feedback from evaluations and surveys available to faculty.
1
The major forum for faculty discussion is the weekly faculty lunch, which alternates between being joint and
separate between CS and EE. An annual Faculty Retreat is utilized to explore major issues in depth. At these
meetings the faculty receive feedback presentations (SP) from undergraduate and graduate student groups such as
HKN and the undergraduate student associations UCSEE, CUAS, AUWICSEE, and BESSA. The Department
annually interacts with industry through our Industrial Liaison Program (ILP) (including Visiting Industrial Fellows)
and our Industrial Advisory Board (IAB). Undergraduates frequently interact with industry through recruitment
sessions called “info-sessions” and the Department-facilitated summer Internship Program, where students meet
recruiters and can interview for summer jobs. We also have an outreach program for disadvantaged undergraduate
students (SUPERB) that helps build their skills for graduate work.
The highlights of the activities in improving our undergraduate educational programs are the following:





A.
We are continuing to develop our most significant curriculum revision in EECS in 20 years, which creates
an extremely flexible curriculum between EE and CS. It is based on a common set of five required lowerdivision courses that provides equal access to upper-division classes. This allows students to quickly react
to career opportunities in the fast-moving technologies as they emerge.
Our course offerings have improved with further development of EE 20N (signals and systems using
discrete-time and limited continuous-time concepts), EE 122 (communication networks), CS 161 (computer
security), and the creation of a 5-Year Bachelor/Master’s Program.
We have major new laboratory facilities (described above) and webcasting and podcasting of 8 classes per
semester.
We have made a concerted effort to improve advising. Many students and faculty are opting for group
advising sessions in which faculty lead informal discussions in which students raise questions and share
experiences.
Finally, the solution adopted for a discrete mathematics course for CS majors, as specified by CSTAB in
their 1994 visit, is working well as students may take Math 55, CS 70, or EE 126.
Background Information
A.1 Degree Titles
The degree awarded to our undergraduates in the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer
Sciences for our ECE program at the University of California, Berkeley (UCB) is:
Bachelor of Science in Engineering on the diploma, and the transcript lists the major of Electrical and
Computer Engineering for all students in program options I, II, III, and V. Program IV is designated Computer
Science and Engineering.
A.2 Program Modes
All students enroll full-time, in the Electrical and Computer Engineering major. Students may also choose one
of our two double-major programs with Materials Science or Nuclear Engineering. All students attend daytime
classes on the Berkeley campus.
A.3 Actions to Correct Previous Deficiencies
No deficiencies were reported at the last ABET review (2000-2001) of the Electrical Engineering Program,
however, the actions based on one warning and eight comments will now be described.
Feedback common to both the ECE and CSE programs from the EE reviewer:

W – Design experience is not always realistic enough
The faculty is aware of this feedback and agrees with the value of realistic constraints. In the
wake of the last visit, we revisited and slightly revised our list of designated “design courses.” The
constraints given in our design classes have changed rapidly with technology advances and the
faculty believes that they are very realistic. There is a class-by-class description of the design
content appended to this ABET 2006 Self Study. The faculty does, however, concentrate on
technical and economic constraints and is less inclined to emphasize societal considerations.
2

C – Engineering unit content (45 units): E 190 is not engineering
Among students graduating in Spring 2003–2005, about 14% would not have met the engineeringunits requirement without counting E 190. Our industry constituents view technical
communication skills specific to engineering as equally important to technical competency.
Students also report that it is very important to their job function. Whether this valued content is
engineering, however, is a controversial question among the faculty. Some comment that listing it
as an engineering skill as distinct from general communication skills defines it as engineering.
Others look at the experience in E 190 of engineers interacting across disciplines with other
engineers on technical subjects as a typical engineering experience. In fact, when offered as a
research-based class, E 190 bears specifically upon a number of ABET-required outcomes. By
requiring students to base writing assignments and oral presentations around a research problem
germane to their engineering interests, they have an opportunity to apply their knowledge of
mathematics, science, and engineering in the process of identifying, formulating, and solving
engineering problems. They also learn to analyze and interpret data and to communicate this
effectively in written and oral form. When working on multi-disciplinary teams and through
recitation of others from other engineering domains, students also gain a better knowledge of
contemporary engineering issues. Finally, classroom discussions about plagiarism and attribution
of sources provide an excellent segue into discussion about professional and ethical responsibility.

C – Facilities are not adequate to meet student load; LD labs don’t have enough workstations
(e.g., CS 150)
Through a generous donation from National Semiconductor and through continual contributions
from Intel, Hewlett-Packard, and now Agilent, we have been able to recondition 3400 square feet
of space in Cory Hall and create a workbench environment similar to that in industry.

C – There is no assurance that the requirement of content in Probability is being met, although
most students seem to have adequate preparation
A number of classes ask students to utilize probability and statistical distributions. These classes
generally assume that the students can pick up this information sufficiently quickly to complete a
weekly homework problem set or a project report in a few weeks. We have not charged a specific
lower-division class with covering this topic, as our courses are already on the verge of packing in
too much material.

O– Objectives are the same as Outcomes
In the 2000 ABET report we mistakenly stated that our outcomes were the same as our objectives.
It was intended to say that the Outcomes to support our Objectives were identical to the ABET a-k
Outcomes. Since 2000 we have also redefined a new set of EECS Outcomes. They remain close to
the ABET a-k outcomes, but are now more descriptive of our ECE and CSE programs.
Feedback on the CSE program from the CS reviewer:

C – Mismatch between demand and capacity
The changes in the dot-com industry and the economy have reduced the demand for computer
science classes by about 30%. This has reduced the size classes such as CS 61B to under 400
students. Still, many upper-division CS classes have enrollments of over 100.

C – Funding for webcasting (alleviates some of the overcrowding problems)
While the State of California does not provide funding for webcasting and podcasting of classes,
we have utilized $32K from taxing research gift funds at the Department level to expand this
experiment. Currently, we webcast eight classes per semester. Part of this is being made possible
by support from the National Science Foundation to develop UC-WISE curricula for introductory
and intermediate programming courses outside Berkeley. We are working with colleagues at three
other U.C. campuses (UCI, UCSD, and the new U.C. Merced) on this project.
3

C – Lack of TAs
The 30% reduction in the demand for CS classes has generally mitigated the intense need for more
TAs. The number of TA positions allocated to EECS, however, has been reduced by more than a
third since 1990.

C – Lack of social/ethical content in program
There are opportunities such as CS C195 taught by an EECS faculty member, as well as unusually
good opportunities in Bio-Engineering, Nuclear Engineering, and in E 100 offered by the College.
There is a continual concern among faculty, however, on what is appropriate and who is qualified
to bring this content into the classroom.
Faculty concern centers on what is appropriate social/ethical content in our programs. For one,
some of the students–often the outspoken ones–view any non-technical content as not being what
the faculty is qualified or being paid to teach. Also, there is a fine line between social and ethical
concerns stimulated by current events, and at Berkeley it is all too easy to politicize the classroom.
Then there is the issue that what we do practice in our classrooms such as fairness and recognition
of others’ work is not practiced by industry and government.
There is a clear EECS Policy on Academic Dishonesty that teaching faculty bring to the attention
of students at the first class meeting. In some courses, students must evaluate the respective
contributions of their team members, and learn fairness and recognition of others’ efforts. In
grading projects, faculty sometimes survey and interview the team members, asking them to give
recognition for contributions where they are due. In grading homework, readers occasionally flag
inappropriate behavior and the class and students are then engaged in a dialog concerning fairness.
B.
Accreditation Summary
B.1 Students
We monitor, evaluate and advise students throughout their progress through the engineering program. The
admissions office first evaluates students when they make their application to an Engineering Program or into
the Engineering Undeclared Program. Students must meet the entrance requirements for the University, as
described in Appendix II.
A regular, full-time faculty member, assigned by the College of Engineering Student Affairs Office, advises
each student. Each semester, faculty advisors provide students with guidance for developing study programs
that both meet requirements and cover areas of specific interest for the students. Because most UCB
Engineering students enter with advanced placement units, advisors also recommend additional courses
outside the required curriculum to enhance student's professional development. Many students and faculty
members are opting for group advising sessions. Here the faculty facilitates the discussion and often by
sharing experiences, the students answer each other’s questions. Faculty members can then comment on the
importance of various skills and discuss career options. Most of our faculty maintain an open-door policy for
meeting with students. The faculty is also active in advising Engineering Science majors and Engineering
Undeclared students. Students must discuss their course selections each semester with their faculty advisor in
order to receive the personal access code required for electronic registration.
The College evaluates students’ course selections and GPA performance to assure that they meet graduation
requirements. This process is outlined for students in the College of Engineering Announcement, available to
students and advisors on the web at http://coe.berkeley.edu/current_students/index.html and also distributed as
a paper booklet, as well as in the policy booklet, Undergraduate Information for Advisors and Students. The
Engineering Student Affairs Office maintains a check sheet (degree check) of completed requirements, and
gives an updated copy to the student and to the faculty advisor prior to the advising period each semester to
aid the faculty advisor during consulting. Students must maintain a 2.0 GPA (out of 4.0) while at UCB or face
academic probation.
4
B.2 Program Educational Objectives
B.2 (1) Mission and Objectives
The Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences has established the following mission
statement, which is given on the website at https://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/abet/.
EECS Mission Statement:

Educating future leaders in academia, government, industry, and entrepreneurial pursuit, through a
rigorous curriculum of theory and application that develops the ability to solve problems,
individually and in teams.

Creating knowledge of fundamental principles and innovative technologies–through research
within the core areas of EECS and in collaboration with other disciplines–that is distinguished by
its impact on academia, industry and society.

Serving the communities to which we belong, at local, national, and international levels, combined
with a deep awareness of our ethical responsibilities to our profession and to society.
As one would expect, our mission statement maps closely to the mission statement of the College of
Engineering and the Mission Statement of the University of California. These follow respectively:
College of Engineering Mission Statement:

To educate men and women for careers of leadership and innovation in engineering and related
fields;

To expand the base of engineering knowledge through original research, developing technology to
serve the needs of society;

To benefit the public through service to industry, government, and the engineering profession.
University Mission Statement:
The distinctive mission of the University is to serve society as a center for higher learning, providing
long-term societal benefits through transmitting advanced knowledge, discovering new knowledge, and
functioning as an active working repository of organized knowledge. That obligation, more specifically,
includes undergraduate education, graduate and professional education, research, and other kinds of
public service, which are shaped and bounded by the central pervasive mission of discovering and
advancing knowledge.
B.2 (2) Constituencies
Our program’s significant constituencies include our undergraduate students, graduate schools, industry,
and alumni. Our undergraduate students are our primary constituency; they are our customers and they and
their families are paying us to give them the highest quality education in electrical and computer
engineering. Graduate schools and industry consume our product, namely the graduating seniors. We find
that industrial demand for our graduates is strong and that our students are accepted to top graduate
programs in engineering such as MIT, Stanford, Carnegie Mellon, and the University of Illinois. Our
alumni remain a significant constituency throughout their careers, providing feedback on our program as
they graduate and after graduation.
B.2 (3) Process for Establishing and Reviewing Objectives and Requirements
The process for establishing and reviewing the Program Educational Objectives utilizes existing
Department processes, as the flow diagram in Figure 1 shows.
5
Chair
EC
FL
FR
TF
FL: faculty lunch
FR: faculty retreat
TF: task forces
EC: executive committee
UGSC
OAS
Objectives
Internal Review
Faculty
Faculty Vote
Students
Staff
External Review
IAB/AAB
IPRO
Alumni
Figure 1: Diagram of process for defining and review of educational objectives.
The chair of EECS is responsible for leading the process to define the EECS mission statement and
educational objectives. The Chair, with assistance from the Executive Committee, surveys and prioritizes
items needing faculty attention. The Chair then delegates responsibilities to standing committees such as
the Undergraduate Study Committee (UGSC), to standing organizations, to special task forces (an example
of which is the ABET Committee), or to the Faculty Retreat Committee. In many cases the issue is an
agenda item at a faculty lunch. The students, faculty, and staff contribute to internal review of the mission
statement and objectives mainly through discussions at staff, committee, and faculty meetings, often with
all three groups represented simultaneously. Discussions between faculty and advisees are often helpful in
refining the interpretation of the objectives.
On the external side, the Industrial Advisory Board (IAB) meets annually and addresses issues of concern
to both the Department and industry, for example, regarding the Internship Program, and discusses how our
objectives are being met by our educational program. Occasionally, an Academic Advisory Board (AAB)
meeting is used to review the educational program as well as objectives. The annual Industrial and Public
Relations Office (IPRO) meeting focuses on research, but surveys of attendees also give valuable
information on objectives that are important to them. The College of Engineering conducts surveys of
graduating seniors (CE-S) as well as alumni 3 years out (CA-3YO), and this information is also used to
determine which skills are most important, given our objectives. The UGSC is responsible for the EECS
Objectives and the Center for Student Affairs (CSA) maintains the description of the objectives in the
Undergraduate Notes published on the web at: http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/Programs/Notes/.
B.2 (4) Objectives for the ECE and CSE Programs
The Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences has established the following objectives
for our programs in Electrical and Computer Engineering and Computer Science and Engineering:
Students in both the ECE and CSE programs will pursue the following objectives:
1. Gain the ability to analyze and solve electrical and computer engineering problems or
computer science and engineering problems through application of fundamental knowledge of
mathematics, science, and engineering.
2. Gain the ability to identify, formulate, and solve challenging engineering problems.
3. Learn to apply modern skills, techniques, and engineering tools to create electronic
or computational systems.
4. Learn to communicate their ideas effectively, whether orally, in written form, or graphically,
and to promote collaboration with other members of engineering teams.
5. Acquire the background in humanities and social sciences required to be effective as
engineers, leaders, and citizens.
6
6. Achieve an understanding of conceptual foundations and emerging applications over a broad
range of electrical engineering, computer engineering, and computer science subjects.
7. Gain professional maturity through selection of their individual courses of study.
B.2 (5) Process for Reviewing the ECE and CSE Courses and Programs
Figure 2 shows the process flow that describes responsibilities for reviewing our courses and program
requirements. We discuss the timing of actions in this process below.
Figure 2: Diagram of the process for reviewing our courses and program requirements. The responsibilities
and timing of actions in this process are discussed below.
The EECS Department and College work together to define courses, define program requirements, and
guide students in their course selection. Within EECS, the Chair delegates the responsibility for courses and
program requirements to the Undergraduate Study Committee (UGSC). They review and approve changes
in course descriptions and investigate proposed program changes. Most specific proposals for course
changes come from the faculty, and are eventually submitted to the UGSC. The UGSC takes action in
response to issues raised by students, and suggestions from faculty and the Chair. It monitors revisions to
the Course Catalog materials required by the campus every other year. Program changes are presented to
the EECS faculty for a vote. Proposed changes in both course descriptions and program requirements then
go to the College Undergraduate Study Committee (CoE UGSC) for consideration. Any change in the
Program requirements are sent by the CoE UGSC to the entire faculty of the College of Engineering for a
formal vote. Once approved by this college committee, the course descriptions including unit changes go to
the Campus (the Committee on Courses of Instruction) for inclusion in the Course Catalog and in the
Schedule of Classes. The responsibility for teaching the content of the Course Description is delegated by
the Chair to the Scheduling Officer (SO), to the Lead Instructor (LI) and to the Instructor (Ins) for a given
offering.
The College Student Affairs Office (CoE UGO) is the formal keeper of the program requirements and the
course description materials as defined by these processes. The College also officially communicates
program requirements to students through publications. The College also generates a Degree Check Form
for each program and provides it to the students for planning and monitoring progress in advising with the
faculty. A master copy of the Degree Check Form for each student is maintained by the College and used to
evaluate the completion of program requirements for each individual student. The College also formally
assigns students to particular faculty for advising based on suggestions of the Chair of the Department.
The Center for Student Affairs (CSA) in the Department operationally assists undergraduate students and
faculty in understanding the requirements, making course selections, and advising. Each year the CSA
7
updates and publishes the Undergraduate Notes. These notes describe the ECE and CSE Objectives and the
program requirements. They describe five suggested options within these two programs of study, and
provide cohesive sets of courses in the form of sample semester-by-semester curricula. The faculty advisors
within one of these Programs of Study are chosen to be knowledgeable in that technical option. The CSA
coordinates the scheduling of the meetings of students with their advisors in conjunction with the opening
of the Campus on-line TeleBears class registration system each semester. The CSA maintains an
Undergraduate Student web page at http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/Students/csa.shtml, which provides links
to the Department’s Undergraduate Notes and a host of other valuable information.
More broadly, the CSA initiates educational programs to aid undergraduate students in accomplishing their
goals while at Berkeley. Center staff and programs serve all undergraduates, offer graduate study advising
as well as pre-professional advising, provide information for academic planning and problem solving, and
promote undergraduate research during the academic year and summer. The undergraduate staff
coordinates recruiting activities for freshman and junior transfer admissions. Operationally, they schedule
classes in coordination with the Registrar and make classroom assignments, faculty assignments, and
graduate student instructor assignments. It maintains the Undergraduate Notes and coordinates changes to
the General Catalog. It matches appropriate faculty advisors with student advisees. Special programs
include the EECS Honors Program and the EECS minor. In general, any activity that affects prospective
and current undergraduates will be within the purview of the CSA. Mary Byrnes directs the Center and
reports to both the Vice Chairs of Undergraduate Matters and the Vice Chair for Graduate Matters, as well
as the Department Chair and Vice Chair.
Examples of using the above processes for reviewing courses and program requirements include the
following:
 In 1997 a flexible curriculum between EE and CS was created and approved by the faculty of the
College that allows students to quickly react to career opportunities in the fast moving technologies
as they emerge between ECE and CSE. The course descriptions and requirements for the five
required lower-division courses in ECE and CSE were approved up through the College level.
 Numerous course descriptions have been created and revised, including a new lower-division hybrid
CS/EE signals and systems course, EE 20N; modification of EE 122, communication networks;
withdrawal of EE 1 (an introductory laboratory course), EE 114 (Power Systems), and EE C145A
(Sensors, Actuators and Electrodes).
 In response to numerous student requests for courses of contemporary importance, in 2005 the
Chair asked the UGSC to systematically examine the need for new undergraduate courses. A new
course on Computer Security, CS 161, emerged from this deliberation.
 After several years of discussion by EECS faculty and students, the 5-Year Bachelor/Master’s
Program was approved by the College of Engineering in 2005.
 At the 2006 Faculty Retreat, the EE faculty in the Physical Electronics area decided to initiate a
systematic re-evaluation of the content of the EE 40, EE 105, EE 130, EE140, and the remainder of
the 140 sequence. They elected to drop EE 131, Semiconductor Electronics, without contest.
B.2 (6) Program Coursework Requirements
The course requirements for our ECE and CSE programs consist of a common lower-division core
curriculum for all students and a flexible selection of upper-division courses planned by students with their
advisors. The requirements are summarized here and are explained in full detail in Chapter 1 of the EECS
Undergraduate Notes on the web at http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/Programs/Notes/index.shtml.
Our lower division-core curriculum sequence is designed to provide a foundation in basic concepts,
software and hardware of computer science (the CS 61 series) and electrical engineering (EE 40,
Introduction to Microelectronic Circuits), as well as mathematical and engineering techniques for modeling
and reasoning about systems (EE 20N). Students must take additional courses outside of the Department
that provide fundamental knowledge in science (principally physics) and mathematics (calculus, linear
algebra, differential equations; and discrete math for Option IV). We require at least 30 units of natural
science, mathematics, and statistics.
8
Students must then take at least 20 units of upper-division material in electrical engineering and computer
science, plus at least an additional 3 units of engineering from any department (totaling 45 units in
engineering). These non-prescriptive requirements provide flexibility in the upper division, permitting
EECS students to follow their ambitions toward emerging new technologies. Planning these courses with
their advisors also helps students evaluate opportunities and develop a sense of ownership for their own
careers. Perceived job opportunities in the near future play an important role. When these well informed
good students vote with their feet among upper-division course offerings, the Department receives
important feedback on the relevance and effectiveness of classes. Establishing skills to enhance job
opportunities is such a strong motivation that most students take several more technical courses than
required. Virtually no students attempt to game the system with an easy set of classes. Registrar’s data
confirms this to be the case. All but a very few students take one of the following design-intensive courses:
EE 122, 123, 140, 141, and 143; CS 150, 152, 160, 162, 164, 169, 184, and 186. More specifically, we had
one graduating senior in Spring 2003, two in Spring 2004, and four in Spring 2005 who had not taken at
least one of these courses. It is not incidental that EE 122, 141, and 143 as well as CS 150, 162, and 170 are
the dominant courses in our six Technical Areas.
As guidance, we provide program technical Options and sample curricula within each of these Options. The
Options include Electronics (Option I), Communication, Networks and Systems (Option II), Computer
Systems (Option III), Computer Science (Option IV), and General Program (Option V).
An upper-division engineering course providing a major design experience based on the knowledge and
skills acquired in earlier coursework and incorporating engineering standards and realistic constraints is
required. The current EECS design courses are: EE 118, EE 120, EE 121, EE 122, EE 123, EE 128, EE
129, EE 130, EE 140, EE 141, EE 142, EE 143, EE C145B, EE C145L, EE C145M, EE 192, CS 150, CS
152, CS 160, CS 161, CS 162, CS 164, CS 169, CS 170, CS 174, CS 184, CS 186, and CS 188. A course in
other engineering departments having substantial engineering design content can be substituted by petition.
Most of the design projects in these courses require that students work in teams.
Although some project courses provide opportunities for formal presentations, neither the faculty nor its
industrial advisors felt that we could expect students to get sufficient instruction in technical writing and
presentation. For this reason, we introduced a requirement for a course (E 190) in this topic.
Finally, the College of Engineering and the University impose requirements for courses in the humanities
outside the College. The objective of these courses is to provide students a social context for the
engineering skills they develop.
A short clarification is in order on courses meeting the discrete math requirement. Probability and Random
Processes (EE126), while being an Upper Division (UD) EECS, meets the discrete math/stat/probability
requirement, but does not count towards the 30 units of Math/Stat/Probability. Option III or Option IV
(CSE) requires M55 or CS70. EE126 counts for Options I, II, V. We have proposed to the College that
students could elect to count EE126 as either UD EECS or part of the 30 units of
Science/Math/Stat/Probability. If a student counted EE126 as UD engineering, they would need to take
something in Math/Science/Stat beyond M1A/1B/53/54+Phys 7A/7B/X (=28 units). Otherwise, if a student
wanted to count EE126 towards the 30 units Science/Math/Stat/Probability, they would need to take
another UD EECS course. In either case, the student taking EE126 is taking a deeper, more in-depth path
than a student who has not taken the course. It would be counterproductive to say that a student would be
better served by taking Math 55 than EE126, particularly for students in Option II.
B.3 Program Outcomes and Assessment
B.3 (1) Processes to Monitor Program Outcomes
Qualitative and quantitative data are used in a continual improvement process to measure the EECS
Outcomes as evidence that we are meeting our Program Objectives. Many feedback processes are operated
in parallel as indicated in the flow diagram in Figure 3.
9
Chair
EC
Faculty
SO
CSA
LI
College
Courses and
Curriculum
Ins
Advising
SP
OD
PR
UGM
Students
HKN
RBT
IAB
ILP
Exit
3YO
Dept. Admin
New Grads
Industry
Academia
Alumni
Figure 3: Diagram of processes to monitor Outcomes and assure satisfaction of Program Objectives.
The triangular symbol indicates a feedback process. It is triggered by the input on the left and utilizes as a
source of information the input on the right. A total of eleven ongoing sources of feedback are shown. The
constituencies of students, new graduates, 3-year-out graduates (3YO), industry/academia, and alumni
provide the information. The advisors, EECS CSA, EECS administration, and the College trigger
individual processes. The output or feedback is directed in most cases to the Chair directly or, in some
cases, to the College. The Chair also annually arranges student presentations (SP) to faculty at the faculty
retreat or faculty lunches. The Chair also provides inputs to the UGSC and calls for presentations at the
faculty lunches on curriculum issues, student feedback, ABET, etc. These undergraduate program issues
are typically considered at a frequency of at least once a month. Recommendations for policy changes from
the committees are discussed at faculty meetings and accepted by vote.
There are several important activities not shown. An informal avenue for quick feedback occurs regularly
during advising when faculty have independent dialog about course requirements and even courses
themselves with students. A quick form of feedback used occasionally is from mid-course surveys and even
quizzes on prerequisite material. We have also used focus groups to get a fuller understanding on particular
issues to improve classes.
B.3 (2) ECE and CSE Program Outcomes
The following Program Outcomes were reviewed and adopted for ABET 2006:
1. An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering to the design of systems
involving electronic or software components.
2. An ability to configure, apply test conditions, and evaluate outcomes of experimental systems.
3. An ability to design systems, components, or processes that conform to given specifications and
cost constraints.
4. An ability to work cooperatively, respectfully, creatively, and responsibly as a member of a team.
5. An ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems.
6. An understanding of the norms of expected behavior in engineering practice and their underlying
ethical foundations.
10
7. An ability to communicate effectively by oral, written, and graphical means.
8. An awareness of global and societal concerns and their importance in developing engineering
solutions.
9. An ability to independently acquire and apply required information, and an appreciation of the
associated process of life-long learning.
10. A knowledge of contemporary issues.
11. An in-depth ability to use a combination of software, instrumentation, and experimental techniques
practiced in circuits, physical electronics, communication, networks and systems, hardware,
programming, and computer science theory.
B.3 (3) Derivation of Program Outcomes
Our Program Outcomes are derived from the ABET a-k Outcome requirements of Criterion 3. We have had
numerous discussions of alternatives and are even experimenting with course-specific interpretation of the
outcomes in surveying individual course offerings. However, our derivation is close to the original ABET
a-k Outcomes for several reasons. The first reason is that if the ABET Outcomes succinctly measure the
essence of any engineering program, then we should succinctly assess the essence of our particular programs
using the same outcomes. A second reason is that it is advantageous with the diversity and constant
changing of technical interests in EECS to maintain the discipline-independent nature inherent in the ABET
a-k Outcomes. This, in fact, can be seen from the EECS Outcomes where we had only limited success in
practice in our attempts to refine ‘conduct experiments’ and ‘design a system, component, or process.’
B.3 (4) Satisfaction of Program Objectives vis-à-vis Program Outcomes
Satisfaction of the complete list of program outcomes (see above) implies satisfaction of the program educational
objectives. The table below indicates those outcomes that assure that each of the seven program objectives is met. In
this table the letters "L" and "H" indicate low and high correlations of the outcome with the objective, and a blank
indicates absence of correlation.
ECE and CSE
Program
Objectives
Program Outcomes
1
2
3
Ability to analyze
and solve problems
H
H
H
Ability to identify
and formulate
problems
H
H
H
L
H
L
Application of
modern skills
H
H
H
L
H
L
Communicational
efficacy
4
5
6
H
Social awareness
L
Understanding new
applications
H
L
H
Gain professional
maturity
H
H
H
7
H
9
L
H
H
L
H
H
H
H
H
L
H
H
L
H
8
10
H
L
H
H
H
11
H
L
H
H
Table 1: Relationships between the eleven program outcomes and seven program objectives.
B.3 (5) Direct Course Evidence of Meeting Outcomes
In this section we use a course-content survey and description of design materials to give a general overall
picture of how courses in the program support the program objectives by facilitating various outcomes. This
11
summary picture is intended as a guide for the ABET reviewers in examining the direct evidence of example
homework, exams, and projects in various courses from individual students.
In studying this matrix and the design descriptions that follow, it is helpful to keep several points in mind.

Typically students experience the program in three stages. In the first stage students take all of the
five Lower-Division Required Courses (LD-RC) that are highlighted in boldface, namely, EE
20N, EE40, CS 61A, CS61B, and CS 61C. They then tend to take about half of the five UpperDivision Core Courses (UD-CC) that are highlighted in italics, namely, EE 105, EE 120, CS 150,
CS 162, CS 170. They then typically take additional specialized Upper-Division courses in at least
one of what might be thought of as six Upper-Division Technical Areas (UD-TA). These are
Circuits (EE 140, EE 141, and EE 142); Physical Electronics (including devices) (EE117, EE118,
EE 119, EE 130, and EE 143); Communication, Networks and Systems (EE 122, EE 123, EE 126,
EE 128, EE C145B, and EE 192); Hardware (CS 152, and EE C145M); Programming (CS 160,
CS 164, CS 182, CS 184, and CS 188); and Computer Science Theory (CS 161, CS 172, and CS
174).

Regarding outcomes such as those for experiments and design it is also important to recognize that
within the broad breadth of EECS, the media for the experiment or design will vary considerably
among electronic instrumentation, tweezers and chemicals, DSP techniques, hardware, software,
or algorithms.

For pedagogical reasons, in the Lower Division in CS classes in the CS 61A,B,C sequence, the
faculty have decided to have each student work by themselves on many programming assignments
so that they will be better prepared to carry their own weight when forming programming teams in
Upper-Division CS classes. This adjustment from previous, completely team-oriented projects in
the lower division was a response to feedback from students and faculty teaching upper-division
courses, who observed cases of students who relied too heavily on their partners to the extent that
they failed to acquire basic skills before taking upper-division courses.
B.3 (5.1) Course Skill-Acquisition Matrix (CSAM)
For each of the 11 Outcomes, faculty Course Champions for each of the courses were asked to indicate the
extent to which a student successfully completing the course and its assignments would attain the skill or
behavior associated with each Outcome. This Course Skill-Acquisition Matrix (CSAM) was completed in
Spring 2006. It is based on a 5-point scale, with response for attaining each outcome ranging from “A Lot”
(5) to “Not at all” (1). Separate CSAM ratings are shown below for the EE- and CS-labeled courses. The
matrix also shows the number of students who took this particular class in each offering in Academic 05-06
followed by the number who were in the combined ECE and CSE programs. Champions were also asked to
list course-specific questions regarding outcomes that could potentially be used for our pilot Course-Specific
Survey (CS-S). Each CSAM can be found in Appendix III (A), including that for Engineering 190.
ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING
Course
Number
1
20N
24
40
42
43
100
105
EECS Outcomes
Course Title and Enrollment (Total/EECS)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
EECS: The First Course
Structure and Interpretation of Systems and Signals
(F'05 226/190.5; Sp'06 91/71)
Freshman Seminar: Gadgets Electrical Engineers Make
(Sp'06 14/5)
Introduction to Microelectronic Circuits
(F'05 155/120; Sp'06 137/96.5)
Introduction to Digital Electronics
(F'05 51/1; Sp'06 50/0)
Introductory Electronics Laboratory
(F'05 49/1; Sp'06 48/1)
Electronic Techniques for Engineering
(F'05 93/0; Sp'06 159/1)
Microelectronic Devices and Circuits
(F'05 83/73; Sp'06 69/66)
2
2
1
1
2
3
1
3
2
3
1
4
4
4
2
5
3
4
3
5
4
5
2
2
1
2
1
2
3
2
2
2
1
4
2
1
2
3
1
2
1
2
3
3
3
2
2
2
4
1
2
1
1
2
2
3
2
2
2
3
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
2
2
2
4
1
2
1
1
2
2
5
5
2
1
5
1
3
1
5
3
5
12
Electromagnetic Fields and Waves
(F'0515/11)
Introduction to Optical Communication Systems and
Networks
Introduction to Optical Engineering
(F'05 19/9.5)
Signals and Systems
(F'05 100/86; Sp'06 128/109.5)
Introduction to Digital Communication Systems
(F'05 11/11)
Introduction to Communication Networks
(F'05 34/26; Sp'06 86/71)
Digital Signal Processing
(F'05 41/37; Sp'06 38/36)
Introduction to Robotics
(F'05 16/16)
Probability and Random Processes
(F'05 30/24.5; Sp'06 76/61)
Feedback Control
(F'05 14/14)
Neural and Nonlinear Information Processing
(Sp'06 27/24)
Integrated-Circuit Devices
(F'05 74/62.5; Sp'06 52/39.5)
Linear Integrated Circuits
(F'05 90/82.5; Sp'06 45/41.5)
Introduction to Digital Integrated Circuits
(F'05 80/77.5; Sp'06 66/62.5)
Integrated Circuits for Communications
(F'05 39/37.5)
Microfabrication Technology
(F'05 56/30.5; Sp'06 46/17.5)
Image Processing and Reconstruction Tomography
(Sp'05 13/5)
Introductory Electronic Transducer Laboratory
(F'05 19/18.5)
Introductory Microcomputer Interfacing Laboratory
(Sp'06 10/8.5)
Mechatronic Design Laboratory
(Sp'06 31/30)
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
C125
126
128
129
130
140
141
142
143
C145B
C145L
C145M
192
5
4
3
3
5
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
4
5
3
4
2
3
4
5
4
4
5
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
2
4
3
5
2
5
3
5
2
4
3
4
4
4
4
3
4
3
5
2
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
1
5
3
2
3
3
5
5
5
3
4
3
4
1
2
1
1
2
4
5
3
2
3
5
2
3
3
5
4
5
5
3
2
1
3
1
2
2
4
2
5
4
3
5
2
4
1
3
1
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
4
5
3
4
2
5
2
3
4
5
5
5
5
2
5
2
5
2
3
2
1
2
4
5
5
5
4
5
2
5
3
5
5
5
5
3
5
3
5
1
4
2
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
3
4
5
5
5
5
5
2
5
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
3
5
1
5
3
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
5
1
5
3
5
5
5
5
4
5
4
5
3
4
3
4
4
4
Table 2: EE Course-by-course summary of ratings for ABET acquired skills.
COMPUTER SCIENCE
Course
Number
3
9A
9B
9C
9D
9E
9F
Course Title and Enrollment (Total/EECS)
Introduction to Symbolic Programming
(F'05 165/63; Sp'06 69/3)
Fortran and Matlab for Programmers (self-paced)
(F'05 5/0; Sp'06 4/0)
Pascal for Programmers (self-paced)
(Sp'06 1/0)
C for Programmers (self-paced)
(F'05 15/2; Sp'06 10/2)
Scheme and Functional Programming for Programmers
(F'05 3/2; Sp'06 3/2)
Productive Use of the UNIX Environment (self-paced)
(F'05 26/9; Sp'06 19/4)
C++ for Programmers (self-paced)
(F'05 26/6; Sp'06 24/6)
EECS Outcomes
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
5
2
5
3
2
1
2
1
2
1
3
5
2
5
1
2
1
2
1
4
1
3
5
2
5
1
2
1
2
1
4
1
3
5
2
5
1
2
1
2
1
4
1
3
5
2
5
1
2
1
2
1
4
1
3
5
2
5
1
2
1
2
1
4
1
3
5
2
5
1
2
1
2
1
4
1
3
13
9G
47A
47B
47C
61A
61B
61C
70
150
152
160
161/194
162
164
169
170
172
174
C182
184
186
188
C191
C195
Java for Programmers
(F'05 26/7; Sp'06 47/5)
Completion of Work in CS 61A (self-paced, graded) –
Interpretation of Computer Programs
(F'05 3/2; Sp'06 2/1)
Completion of Work in CS 61B (self-paced, graded) –
Supplemental Data Structures
(F'05 12/6; Sp'06 10/7)
Completion of Work in CS 61C (self-paced, graded) –
Supplemental Machine Structures
(F'05 1/0; Sp'06 1/1)
Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs
(F'05 303/166; Sp'06 218/99)
Data Structures
(F'05 105/54.5; Sp'06 119/69.5)
Machine Structures
(F'05 139/88.5; Sp'06 194/132)
Discrete Mathematics and Probability Theory
(F'05 51/29; Sp'06 66/30)
Components and Design Techniques for Digital
Systems
(F'05 100/92.5; Sp'06 72/61)
Computer Architecture and Engineering
(F'05 12/11)
User Interface Design and Development
(F'05 65/28; Sp'06 52/20)
Computer Security
(F'05 99/49.5)
Operating Systems and System Programming
(F'05 123/68; Sp'06 111/66)
Programming Languages and Compilers
(F'05 36/20; Sp'06 77/36.5)
Software Engineering
(F'05 68/32.5; Sp'06 51/29)
Efficient Algorithms and Intractable Problems
(F'05 110/46; Sp'06 89/44)
Computability and Complexity
(F'05 16/7)
Combinatorics and Discrete Probability
(F'05 15/7; Sp'06 24/5)
The Neural Basis of Thought and Language
(Sp'06 28/9.5)
Foundations of Computer Graphics
(F'05 43/23; Sp'06 57/27)
Introduction to Database Systems
(F'05 123/71.5; Sp'06 88/43.5)
Introduction to Artificial Intelligence
(F'05 114/33; Sp'06 108/41)
Quantum Information Science and Technology
(F'05 10/5)
Social Implications of Computer Technology
(F'05 3/0)
5
2
5
1
2
1
2
1
4
1
3
4
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
1
2
4
5
3
5
1
4
1
3
1
4
1
5
5
3
5
2
4
2
3
3
2
4
5
4
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
1
2
4
5
3
5
1
4
1
3
1
4
1
5
5
3
5
2
4
2
3
3
2
4
5
5
1
3
1
5
1
3
1
1
1
5
3
4
5
3
5
3
3
2
4
4
5
5
4
5
4
5
1
3
2
1
3
5
4
4
5
5
4
4
5
4
3
3
4
5
1
5
1
5
2
2
2
1
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
3
4
4
4
5
5
4
4
3
2
2
3
4
5
5
5
3
5
2
5
2
5
3
5
5
5
5
1
5
1
5
2
4
3
4
3
5
5
1
3
1
5
1
4
2
1
2
3
5
1
4
1
5
2
2
1
2
2
2
4
4
2
5
2
3
4
4
2
4
3
4
2
5
4
1
2
3
2
4
1
5
5
3
5
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
5
5
3
5
3
5
1
2
2
4
2
4
5
1
3
5
2
2
4
2
2
4
2
1
2
1
2
1
5
4
4
3
5
1
Table 3: CS course-by-course summary of ratings for ABET acquired skills.
B.3 (5.2) Summary of Design Experience
The Course Champions also provided additional information on the nature of the design experience in
classes for which design is high (rated 4 or 5). We summarize this information for each of these classes
below.
14
EE 20N, Structure and Interpretation of Systems and Signals, introduces students to mathematical
modeling techniques used in the design of electronic systems. Course coverage includes the mathematical
foundations of sets and functions; signals as functions, i.e., continuous- and discrete-time signals, images,
discrete-event signals, and sequences; automata theory; hybrid systems, i.e., combining time-based signals
with event sequences; difference and differential equations as models for linear, time-invariant state
machines; frequency domain representations of signals and systems; sampling of continuous signals; and
applications to communication systems, audio, video, and image processing systems (e.g., biomedical
imaging), control, and robotics. The design component, a MATLAB-based set of 11 laboratory exercises, is
an integral part of the course. The labs map closely with course coverage where, for example, students are
asked to explore arrays in MATLAB and use them to construct sound signals; or they are asked to construct
a closed-loop controller, or they are asked to use frequency domain concepts in practical applications. The
course is approximately 25% design.
EE 118, Introduction to Optical Communication Systems and Networks, considers digital and analog
communication systems and optical networks. Both components and communication system configurations
are considered. The course is about ⅓ design. Students typically design systems for receivers, CD ROM
readers, and optical filters to achieve given specifications.
EE 120, Signals and Systems, builds on EE 20N, looking deeper into mathematical techniques used in the
design and analysis of signals and systems, as well as applications in communications, control, signal
processing, and robotics. Though the course is approximately 75% science, as with EE 20N, it contains a
practical component that involves MATLAB simulations of real-world design problems in systems
engineering. The knowledge and skills acquired in EE 120 are at the heart of an entire series of upperdivision classes, including EE 121, 123, C125, 128, and 192.
EE 121, Introduction to Digital Communication Systems, is an introduction to the basic principles of the
design and analysis of modern digital communication systems. Topics include source coding, channel
coding, baseband and passband modulation techniques, receiver design, and channel equalization.
MATLAB exercises illustrate these concepts, and comprise the design component of the class. The intent of
the exercises is to provide students with the capability to choose an appropriate modulation system for a
given application, such as a digital telephone modem, compact disk, or digital wireless communication
system; do a comparative analysis of the noise performance of different modulation systems; and design
appropriate receiver structures to achieve given design goals. In the process of these exercises, students learn
some of the most important data compression algorithms used in practice, as well as some of the most
fundamental error control coding and decoding schemes. The course is approximately 25% design.
EE 122, Introduction to Communication Networks, introduces students to the operating and design
principles of the Internet and associated technologies. The course is approximately 70% science and 30%
design. Students are introduced to network programming and to simulation tools for networks, as well as
basic modeling and performance evaluation techniques. In addition, students must design and build a
network application and then justify their design choices. Opnet, a tool common in industry, and NS2, a
discrete event simulator written in C++ with an OTcl interpreter shell as the user interface that allows the
input model files to be executed, are used variously for simulating networks. Programming assignments are
done in Java. EE122 students learn modern skills and techniques, and use up-to-date engineering tools.
EE 123, Digital Signal Processing, is designed to develop students’ skills for analyzing and synthesizing
algorithms and systems that process discrete time signals, with emphasis on realization and implementation.
The course is approximately 75% science and 25% design. The course includes FIR and IIR filter design
techniques, including optimal FIR design using the Remez Exchange Algorithm. There are 2-3 Matlab
assignments during the course that expose students to filter design. EE123 students learn to apply modern
skills, techniques, and tools in digital signal processing in analyzing and solving electrical and computer
engineering problems.
EE 128, Feedback Control, examines the theory of analysis and synthesis of continuous and discrete time
linear feedback control systems. Course coverage includes, but is not limited to, system modeling, the rootlocus design method and procedure, pole placement design, estimator design, discrete state-space design
method, oscillator design, system modeling and linearization, phase-locked loop design, and state feedback
15
controller design and computer simulation. The course includes seven labs that involve increasingly difficult
control design problems. In the last lab, which involves developing and evaluating a microcontroller-based
position/speed control system, different components’ manufacturer specifications are given and students are
to satisfy a number of competing engineering objectives. Students also design a feedback controller, as well
as developing a model for an open-loop system. The course is approximately 50% design and provides a
major design experience.
EE 129, Neural and Nonlinear Information Processing, emphasizes the principles and applications of
Neural Networks and Cellular Automata to massively parallel real-time computations, including the
architecture and design of a CNN (Cellular Neural Network) Universal Machine, a real-time stored-program
tera-instructions per second supercomputer on a chip. Many real-world applications (e.g., artificial vision,
video compression, mammogram diagnosis, image fusion, motion and pattern recognition, etc.) will be
presented, along with demonstrations of the CNN universal chip, a brain-like computer on a chip. Students
are then required to undertake a multi-week project on applying the CANDY CNN simulator to an
application. The course is ⅓ design.
EE 130, Integrated-Circuit Devices, provides a comprehensive introduction to the electronic properties of
semiconductors, technology, theories of the most important electronic devices (e.g., MOS devices), and their
impacts on the performance of integrated circuits. The objectives of the course are to develop a physical
understanding of three important devices: the pn junction, the MOS transistor, and the biopolar transistor, as
well as to develop general skills for analyzing and designing semiconductor devices. Students are required to
complete a design project involving two-dimensional device simulation. For example, the project for the
past term required students, who worked in teams of two, to characterize and analyze an NMOSFET
targeted at the high performance 45nm node. In process, students gained experience using MEDICI, a device
simulator used by many companies, and TSUPREM4, a process simulation input deck that simulates actual
process flows to fabricate an intended device, and which can be imported into MEDICI to simulate IV.
Students also obtained insight into the detailed inner workings of the MOSFET. The course is approximately
35% design, and provides electronic device knowledge to students who wish to pursue IC analysis and
design (EE 140, 141, 142), semiconductor fabrication (EE 143), and/or who are interested in MEMS or
optoelectronics.
EE 140, Linear Integrated Circuits, gives students a firm grounding in the analysis and design of MOS
and bipolar analog integrated circuits. The course is approximately 25% science and 75% design. Emphasis
is placed on the practical aspects of IC design, and a heavy emphasis is placed on design content, where
students use SPICE as a simulation tool. The laboratory builds on the concepts presented in the lectures and
provides hands-on design experience. In the Spring '06 course, students were required to complete two
design projects, the first of which required designing an operational amplifier with a differential input and a
differential output, and the second of which required designing an operational amplifier with a differential
input and a single-ended output. Students were then required to submit written project reports. The course is
designed to help students identify, formulate, and solve challenging engineering problems using modern
tools, techniques, and skills.
EE 141, Introduction to Digital Integrated Circuits, covers the electrical characteristics of digital
integrated circuits. It provides a major design experience where students learn how to find the logic levels,
noise margins, power consumption, and propagation delays of digital integrated circuits based on scaled
CMOS technologies. The course is a hands-on introduction to design methodologies emphasizing
optimization of designs with respect to a number of metrics (e.g., cost, reliability, performance, and power
dissipation) and the design of large system blocks, including arithmetic, interconnect, memories, and
programmable logic arrays. Recent group design projects include that of a Clock Distribution Network, an
Adder Design, and a Memory Array that consists of 64 32-bit words. The course uses industry-standard
tools (e.g., Cadence and SPICE) and covers emerging applications. It is approximately 50% science and
50% design.
EE 142, Integrated Circuits for Communications, considers analysis and design of electronic circuits for
communication systems, with an emphasis on integrated circuits for wireless communication systems. It
includes analysis of noise and distortion in amplifiers with application to radio receiver design. The course
also covers power amplifier design with application to wireless radio transmitters. Radio-frequency mixers,
16
oscillators, phase-locked loops, modulators, and demodulators are also considered. The course is design
intensive with a 50% design component. A sample project is the design and simulation of an RF sub-system,
such as a front-end receiver or transmitter in a CMOS or BiCMOS technology.
EE 143, Microfabrication Technology, provides a major laboratory and teamwork design experience. The
course, which is approximately 50% design, involves process integration design of MOS and MEMS
devices based on fabrication modules. Students fabricate about 15 functional IC devices and MEMS
structures with a given sequence of processing steps. With processing variability of microfabrication steps,
each team has to redesign or adjust process control variables (e.g., temperature, time, thickness, deposition
and etching rates, lithography exposure, and resist development) for all subsequent steps based on their
understanding of microfabrication mechanisms and device performance. The designed values are based on
extrapolation of collected data, engineering charts, analytical models, and computer simulation tools.
Students in EE143 gain knowledge of emerging technologies and their impact on state-of-the-art processing
designs using modern tools (e.g., SSUPREM3 and SSUPREM-4, SIMPL, SAMPLE) and laboratory
techniques.
EE C145B, Image Processing and Reconstruction Tomography, examines the science and technology of
tomography and image processing in the medical, physical, and geological sciences. Course coverage
includes linear systems and Fourier transforms in two and three dimensions; basic image processing; theory
and algorithms for image reconstruction from projections; the physics of imaging systems, including
magnetic resonance, X-ray tomography, positron emission tomography, ultrasound, and biomagnetic
imaging; and data analysis, including hypothesis testing, parameter estimation by least squares, and
compartmental kinetic modeling. Students must possess basic programming ability in C or FORTRAN as a
prerequisite to the course, in addition to having taken EE 120. The design component, though 25%, is
rigorous. Students download actual images from various image processing devices and are given constraints
as to types of tissue, bone, and the like that are to be enhanced in images and distinguished from other
confounding materials and structures. Students must then develop image-processing algorithms, implement
them in code, and evaluate their performance.
EE C145L, Introductory Electronic Transducer Laboratory, is organized around the following
objectives: to enable students to amplify signals from sensors that have low-level, differential, highimpedance outputs; to teach students about noise sources and how to use shielding, grounding, and analog
filtering to enhance the signal-to-noise ratio; to instruct students about the properties of a number of useful
sensors for measuring position, temperature, strain, force, light, ionic potentials, biological signals, ionizing
radiation, and the like; to design instrumentation that senses desired quantities, transduces to an electrical
signal, and amplifies and filters that signal for interfacing to a microcomputer; to design simple analog
control systems using sensors, amplification, filtering, controller circuits, power amplifiers, and actuators; to
make analog circuits work (design and debugging); and to write clear, concise, and informative laboratory
reports. The course is substantively related to a number of others we offer, namely EE 20N, 40 (a
prerequisite for EE 145L), 43, 105, C125, 128, 140, C145B, C145M, 192, as well as ME 135 and E 190. It is
approximately ⅓ science and ⅔ design.
EE C145M, Introductory Microcomputer Interfacing Laboratory, is a closely related course to EE
C145L. It is structured similarly in terms of its laboratory emphasis. It is organized around the following
objectives: the use of LabVIEW programming language, and digital and analog interfacing in an interactive,
microcomputer environment; to instruct students in the use of digital timers, digital interfacing, and simple
handshaking with expansion cards and external devices; to teach students the principles of operation and the
use of D/A and A/D converters and to build a data acquisition circuit; to sample digital data, use antialiasing filters and windows, and perform the FFT; to learn the use of digital filters and digital control
strategies for both linear and non-linear systems; to design anti-aliasing filters that meet specific
requirements; and to make programs and analog circuits work together (design and debugging). This course
also is related substantively to a number of others we offer, namely EE 20N and 40 (prerequisites for EE
145M), 43, 120, 123, C125, 128, C145B, C145L, and 192, as well as CS 150, ME 135, and E 190. It is
approximately ⅔ design.
EE 192, Mechatronic Design Laboratory, is a senior-level hands-on design project course incorporating
hardware and software design. The course is designed to show how fundamental principles taught in other
17
EECS classes are applied to control of a small-scale system, such as an autonomous robot vehicle. Students
are exposed to current tools such as PCB layout tools, Solidworks CAD software, Matlab/Simulink, as well
as lab instrumentation (e.g., oscilloscopes, power supplies, function generators). Students design DC-DC
converters, power supplies, printed circuit boards, wiring connections, mounting brackets, optical sensors,
magnetic field sensors, op-amp filter and detector circuits, digital filters, digital controllers, and real-time
software and user interfaces for their vehicles. Students work in teams of 2 or 3 and are required to present
their design ideas in written and oral reports, in addition to testing their vehicles on an embedded-wire path
at high speed. The class exposes students to current industry practice in the area of mechatronics. Real
world-mechatronic examples such as PATH (Program for Automation Technology for the Highway) show
how the exponentially decreasing cost of sensing, control, and intelligence can potentially revolutionize
fields with traditionally high capital, labor, or energy costs. Student graduates of EE192 are much sought
after by employers because they have much better than average hands-on skills. It is a capstone design
course.
CS 3, Introduction to Symbolic Programming, prepares students for the software design experiences
found in both in 61B and 61C, and in numerous other upper-division courses we offer, as seen below. Using
the Scheme programming language, which is a dialect of LISP, students learn how to program in this course.
CS 3 is organized to maximize student time designing and writing programs, and experimenting with the
programming environment. The course has a 50% design component, consisting of three programming
“mini-projects” and one large programming project. At each step, students are required to make increasingly
sophisticated software design decisions regarding data structure, algorithm, time vs. space, and the like, and
to consider their various implementation trade-offs. The final project, which is essentially the creation of a
basic computer program, requires a fair amount of software engineering. Final projects are usually done in
groups of two. Thus, the course fulfills a number of program objectives, as well.
CS 61B, Data Structures, takes students who have learned the bare essentials of programming in previous
courses and begins to expose them to the challenges and techniques involved in addressing larger programs.
This exposure includes complexity analysis, object-oriented design and abstraction techniques, use of
modern IDEs, writing programs or components to detailed specifications, use of component libraries, and
systematic testing. Projects include “Puzzle Solver,” “Spatial Database,” and “Jumping Cubes,” and are
written in the Java programming language. In each of these projects, students are required to apply what
they’ve learned in previous assignments and lectures on data structures, abstract data types, interfaces, and
algorithms for sorting and searching. The course provides an exceptional “software engineering” experience,
that is, the design and implementation of large programs.
CS 61C, Machine Structures, brings students through a series of abstractions from high-level
programming through machine architecture to logic design. The C programming language, MIPS assembly
language, and schematic diagrams are used to introduce abstractions. The course is approximately ⅓ design,
and requires students to design and implement C-language based programs, MIPS assembly language
programs, and hardware circuits, including a complete processor architecture. Sample projects include a
machine language interpreter written in C; a cache simulator written in C; and a CPU hardware design and
simulation. The strong design component of this course prepares students for making the kind of
fundamental architectural design decisions and evaluating the trade-offs involved as are required in upperdivision courses such as CS 152 and CS 162.
CS 150, Components and Design Techniques for Digital Systems, gives junior-level students an
understanding of digital system design techniques, including top-down design, FSM design, introductory
computer design, and detailed timing issues. The course builds on basic knowledge in electronics (EE 40)
and computer engineering (EE 61C) to allow students to design and understand very complex digital
systems. The course familiarizes students with the basics of digital design and provides advanced laboratory
experience where they are exposed to modern testing and simulation tools, such as Verilog, Synplicity
Synplify, Xilinx Virtex E, ChipScope, Modelsim, and instrumentation such as the HP/Agilent 56645D
Oscilloscope. This is followed by a 7-week project that in recent years has included: an electronic etch-asketch, a network audio interface, a real-time video analyzer, a streaming video receiver, and this past
semester, a wireless two-player tron video game. Students work in teams of 2 and are required to present
18
brief oral presentations and a final project report. Graduates of the design-intensive CS 150 are well
prepared to tackle design of digital systems.
CS 152, Computer Architecture and Engineering, provides an in-depth understanding of the inner
workings of modern digital computer systems, and the tradeoffs present at the hardware-software interface.
It has a significant design component. The course has one large design project that is built incrementally
throughout the term. Students work in teams of two or three. During the first five phases of the project,
students develop a standard MIPS pipeline using CAD tools and Verilog, and then download this pipeline to
a Xilinx board to run as “real hardware.” During the final phase of the project, students proceed with openended enhancements to their pipelines in order to achieve a design objective, such as high performance.
Student teams must present their objectives, design methodology, and benchmark results at a final project
presentation. The course is approximately 40% design.
CS 160, User Interface Design and Development provides a capstone design experience; it is
approximately 75% design and 25% science. In it, students learn how to prototype, evaluate, and design user
interfaces using a variety of methods. The course is an introduction to Human Computer Interaction and
focuses on a broad set of skills needed for user-centered design, such as ideation, needs assessment,
communication, rapid prototyping, and evaluation. Course grades are based primarily on a semester-long
group design project targeting, for example, small devices such as Smart phones. Teams are
multidisciplinary and composed of four to five students. Enrollment is managed so that each team has at
least one non-CS major on it. Students design user studies of their prototypes and analyze the results
qualitatively and quantitatively using state-of-the art platforms and tools. There is lecture material and
assignments on the ideation and idea selection processes in design. Project evaluation involves two oral
presentations and several written reports in narrative form. The course content includes localization and
cultural issues that bear on customizing a product for a particular national market. CS 160 is unique among
most of the other computer science classes at Berkeley in that focus is not on particular techniques or
technologies, but rather on the use of technology to develop applications.
CS 161, Computer Security, is a new course offering that contains a significant design component. The
course differs from computer security courses at other institutions by: 1) featuring close coordination of
lecture material with two substantial design projects; 2) focusing on modern language- and cryptographybased approaches to security instead of older verification-based approaches; and 3) the broad scope of its
coverage, which includes: communication security, operating systems security, database security,
programming language security, application level security, privacy, and digital rights management. The
course is designed for junior- and senior-level students, primarily those specializing in computer science. In
addition to requiring programming intensive-homework assignments, students complete two projects during
the semester, the first of which is to design and implement a secure instant messaging program, and the
second of which provides practical experience in analyzing software for vulnerabilities. These projects
require students to learn specific tools and libraries that are useful to security engineers. It is approximately
50% design, and provides a capstone design experience.
CS 162, Operating Systems and System Programming, teaches the basic concepts of operating systems
and systems programming, the goal of which is to build an operating system from scratch. There are 4
projects, each of which corresponds to four of the major pieces of a modern operating system: thread
management, multiprogramming, virtual memory, and networking. The end result of the project is for
students to build a distributed application, for instance, a chat client and server, with each user on a different
computer connected by a network. To do this, however, first they must build the operating system that the
distributed application needs in order to be able to run, i.e., the infrastructure for running distributed
programs. Each project consists of three graded components: a design document, a solution code, and
project group member evaluations. By working in programming teams of 4-8, students also have an
opportunity to learn to communicate their ideas effectively. The course is approximately 50% design, and
provides a capstone design experience.
CS 164, Programming Languages and Compilers, is an introduction to the design and implementation of
programming languages. The course is 50% science and 50% design. The science component stresses the
theory of programming language design (e.g., parsing, semantic analysis, code generation, and run-time
systems), and associated programming tools (e.g., compilers, interpreters, and assemblers). The practical,
19
design component consists of a significant course-long project in which students implement a simple
programming language through a set of programming exercises. Taken together, these exercises comprise
most of the parts of a compiler, as well as an interpreter. Student projects are variously written in Common
Lisp, C++, or Java, as chosen by the professor or the students. Projects are done in teams of two, so students
must learn to communicate with each other and work together to formulate and solve problems that arise in
the implementation of their code.
CS 169, Software Engineering, provides a significant hands-on design experience. The course contains a
large 7-stage software design and implementation project, likely the largest and most real life-like software
project that our students undergo. The course covers techniques for dealing with the complexity of software
systems and focuses on principles of design and software architecture, testing, debugging, static analysis,
and version control. In that the course project is done in teams of 6-8, course coverage also includes
managing requirements, arbitrating functional and design specifications, and formulating test plans. The
course emphasizes writing code that is computationally efficient, robust, and bug free, and teaching students
to evaluate, select, and use the latest software technologies, as is consistent with contemporary software
development practices. Cooperation and communication among group members are evidenced in write ups
of requirements and design specifications, testing and implementation plans, and a final documentation and
demonstration. The course is approximately 60% design, and provides a capstone software design
experience.
CS 170, Efficient Algorithms and Intractable Problems, familiarizes students with algorithms for
recurring basic computational problems. Unlike other computer science classes offered, CS 170 does not
have a project requirement. What it does require, however, qualifies it as having a significant design
component in that students learn to design algorithms to solve novel problems. In addition to focusing on the
concept and basic techniques of the design and analysis of algorithms, topics covered include models of
computation; algorithms for optimum search trees; balanced trees and UNION-FIND algorithms; numerical
and algebraic algorithms; and computational algorithms. In the process of designing algorithms, students
learn about the concept of the intrinsic difficulty of certain computational problems. The course is
approximately 25% design.
CS 174, Combinatorics and Discrete Probability, is about probabilistic methods in the design and
analysis of algorithms. Topics covered include: events and probability; discrete random variables and
expectation; methods and deviations; Chernoff bounds; ball, bins, and random graphs; the probabilistic
method; Markov chains and random walks. Also covered is a subset of the Monte Carlo method; coupling of
Markov chains; and martingales. The course familiarizes students with basic tools in discrete probability and
their applications to the design and analysis of randomized algorithms and data structures. Bi-monthly
lab/homework assignments requiring some linear programming help to demonstrate how probabilistic ideas
and techniques can lead to more efficient and conceptually simpler algorithms for many problems. The
course is approximately 25% design.
CS 184, Foundations of Computer Graphics, provides an overview of software and hardware systems for
computer graphics. Course objectives seek to provide: an understanding of the physical and geometrical
principles used in computer graphics; an understanding of rendering algorithms and their relationship with
illumination models; an understanding of the basic techniques used to model 3-D objects, both as surfaces
and as volumes; and an acquaintance with design factors related to human interaction, color perception, and
other ergonomic considerations. The course, which has a reputation for demanding assignment/project work,
is approximately 50% design. Students may work alone or in groups and may share ideas, but not their
written code. This course provides a capstone design experience, up to and including oral and graphic
presentations of final projects at the end of the semester.
CS 186, Introduction to Database Systems, is a hands-on introduction to database systems, namely their
internal architecture, algorithms and data structures, mathematical underpinnings, and use. Course coverage
includes engine technology for large data sets; data models and languages; database design; and database
application development. Hands-on, group-based software projects are required during the semester: the first
involves modification of the internals of the PostgreSQL database system, a full-function, open-source
DBMS; the second involves building a web application over Postgres, using SQL and PHP scripting
language; and the third includes some small homework assignments. A number of program objectives are
20
met by the course. Among others, the projects are intended to introduce students to challenging engineering
design problems, including the real-world difficulties of integrating with legacy code inside a production
database engine. Empirical benchmarking exercises require students to go beyond design and
implementation, to understand the implications of design tradeoffs by examining their impact on
performance for different workloads. Finally, group-based projects require students to communicate ideas
effectively. This course provides a capstone design experience.
CS 188, Introduction to Artificial Intelligence, examines the basic ideas and techniques underlying the
design of intelligent computer systems. Emphasis is placed upon the “core competencies” of intelligent
systems – problem solving, reasoning, decision making, and learning – and on the logical and probabilistic
foundations of these activities, particularly the statistical modeling paradigm. Application to problems
involving naturally-generated human data (e.g., language) is also stressed. The course is 50% design, where
coursework consists of 4 written problem sets and 4 programming assignments/projects. Code is written in
Python. With the exception of the first project, which focuses on mazes and the 8-puzzle, two classic
domains in the AI community, the rest of the programming assignments address realistic present day AI
applications: building two classifiers to recognize hand-written digits; building hidden Markov models for
automatic speech recognition; and writing reinforcement learning algorithms (i.e., value iteration and QLearning) in order to control a simulated robot. Project requirements definitely contribute to program
objectives in that students learn to design systems to meet desired needs.
B.3 (6) Indirect Evidence of Achieving Program Outcomes
This section describes the processes by which we collect and analyze data of a survey nature on a continuing
basis to further develop and improve our program. For several recent surveys of our constituents, the key
observations from the data are considered here in detail. In all cases an acronym identifier is given for using
the summary table in Section B.3 (8) to locate the data. Evidentiary source material for assessing our
program outcomes can be found either in Appendix III, on the web, or on the accompanying EECS ABET
CD-ROM.
The Eta Kappa Nu Course Survey (HKN-CS) is a very timely and rich source of feedback that occurs at the
completion of each course offering. The Department Chair’s staff works with the undergraduate honor
society, Eta Kappa Nu (HKN), to conduct, process, and post classroom surveys from each course section at
the end of each semester. These ratings for each professor and every course offering from 1989 can be found
at: http://hkn.eecs.berkeley.edu/student/CourseSurvey/.
The Survey provides excellent information regarding instructor/TA teaching effectiveness and course
“worthwhileness.” It comprises 17 items bearing on teaching effectiveness (e.g., gives lectures that are well
organized; is careful and precise in answering questions; the pace of the course is too fast), in addition to
two direct questions asking students to rate the overall teaching effectiveness of the instructor and the value
of the course when compared with others taken at U.C. Ratings are made on the basis of a 7-point scale, but
are item dependent as to favorability.
At two- to three-year intervals (depending on rank), each faculty member is evaluated for promotion. At that
time, every single comment about the instructor on the HKN forms is included in the promotion case and an
overall evaluation is made by the Chair. Both the data and the evaluation are put forward to the Dean of
Engineering in a formal promotion case that goes on to the Campus Budget Committee and then to the ViceProvost for Academic Affairs and Faculty Welfare for review.
21
Course-Specific Survey (CS-S): In Spring 2006 we experimented with surveying four courses on achieving
outcomes specific to a particular course. We hope that the College of Engineering will facilitate on-line
surveys associated with viewing grades and the current experiment should bring us up the learning curve
quickly. This new course-specific survey was administered at the end of the semester along with the HKN
Course Survey. It consisted of a total of 10 questions divided between the instructor’s questions about the
operation of the course and a subset of the EECS Outcomes customized to the course content. Quantifiable
data was obtained by asking students to rate on a 5-point scale the degree to which they agreed or disagreed
with a statement. The data is to be returned to the instructor after scanning by the College after the end of the
semester. Copies of the four course-specific surveys can be found in Appendix III (B). Data will be
presented during the site visit.
Undergraduate Student Officers and Chairs Dialog (UGSO-CD) consists of a fall semester planning and
budgeting meeting with approximately 10 student leaders from the student societies. Typically HKN, the
undergraduate professional society student groups UCSEE and CUSA, and the affinity groups such as
AWICSE and BESSA participate. The Chairs encourage the student organizations to provide programmatic
suggestions or other improvements that they would like to see implemented. The Chairs in return provide
office space, computer equipment, and some financial support for student activities. The notes from these
meetings are evidence of the very important roles that the student groups provide. These include helping to
create a sense of community among undergraduates, providing academic mentoring, tutoring, hands-on
experience for undergrads, and recruitment and retention of women and underrepresented minorities.
Undergraduate Student Presentations to Faculty (UGS-SP) are presentations near the end of the spring
semester by leaders of the student societies made directly to assembled faculty. These presentations tend to
identify broad programmatic issues (such as quality of advising, workloads, etc.) at the grass-root level.
Issues are generally identified in this mode of communication well before they are picked up by other
monitoring mechanisms. The groups collect input from students, often by polling their own members, and
develop a composite view to present to the faculty. The presentations are made collectively by
approximately 10 student leaders either at the annual retreat or a faculty lunch. The presentation is followed
by a general discussion with the faculty. Further discussion in small groups on individual issues frequently
occurs afterward. The key issues are then either acted on by the Chair or referred to the appropriate
committee for careful consideration.
Center for Student Affairs Advising Survey (CSA-AS) was used to understand the advising-quality issue in
depth. A major on-line survey of undergraduates’ view of advising was made in Spring 2003 and presented
to the faculty in Fall 2004. Some 275 students responded. Of these 66.5% preferred group advising, 27.3%
preferred individual advising. Some 15% did not meet their advisor during advising period due to
scheduling conflict, did not know time, etc. Only 15.3% used Peer Advising and most prefer faculty/friends.
Seventy percent have had one advisor, 27% two-three advisors, 3% more than three advisors. Only 6% were
strongly dissatisfied and another 8% were dissatisfied. Students gave input on what they liked and disliked
the most. A discussion at a faculty lunch in September 2004 encouraged faculty to switch to group advising
for the fall semester. This mode of operation identified, characterized, and improved an issue in about a
year. A copy of the survey summary can be found in Appendix III (C).
The Industrial Advisory Board (IAB) meets annually to advise the Chair. It consists of leaders from
constituent companies who often hire our students. The agenda varies but typically includes advice on issues
in the undergraduate program. The agenda from Spring 2005 is an example. The discussion included getting
feedback on the Five-Year Bachelor/Master’s Program and the use of mezzanine courses between undergrad
and graduate level. The IAB Board suggested the inclusion of entrepreneurial-oriented courses and raised a
concern about increases to the faculty workload.
The Industrial and Public Relations Office Summer Internship Program (IPRO-SI) is a program that has
undergone significant modification in recent years. The goal of the program is to develop challenging work
assignments for undergraduates as an assist in their professional development, and as such helps students to
clarify their career goals.
From its inception in 1989 through 2001, this program was well supported by industry and very well
received by our best and brightest undergraduates. In 2002, however, the economic impact of the events of
22
9/11 had a drastic effect upon the willingness and ability of many of our partner companies to participate in
the Program. In part this was due to turnover of key industry contacts, reluctance by companies to pay the
fees associated with the Program, and a desire to intern students with a professional orientation as opposed
to those wishing to pursue advanced degrees. As a consequence, a questionnaire was sent in 2002 to
participating companies for their evaluation of the Internship Program. In the Summer of 2003, participating
Interns were also queried about their experiences in the Program. A “Best Practices” summarization based
on these data was written.
As can be seen in Table 4, EECS Internship Program participation from 2000-2004 has steadily declined
since 2000. With the upturn in the economy and an increase in available internships; participation in the
Program as part of the ILP membership package; an elimination of the 3.0 GPA requirement; and the
introduction of matching interns with companies, the numbers are again on the rise. Thus, in 2006, 20
companies, among whom include old faithfuls such as Cisco, IBM, Microsoft, and National Semiconductor
are joined by new ILP members interested in the Internship Program, namely: Adobe, The Aerospace
Corporation, Blue Jungle, Cypress Semiconductor, Data Domain, Marvell, MicroAssembly Technologies,
Inc., Palm, Pixar, Raytheon, Ricoh, SAP, Sharpcast, Tellme, VMware, and Yahoo!. Data on interns accepted
during 2005 are being collected.
EECS INTERNSHIP PROGRAM PARTICIPATION
Company
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
AMD
1
2
1
2
1
Agilent
7
6
4
2
Cisco
13
3
Compaq
7
4
2
Ford Motor
9
2
HP Labs
5
IBM Almaden
6
8
4
2
LBNL
7
2
1
Lockheed
5
3
3
10
3
Microsoft
10
12
2
6
1
Motorola
3
6
6
National Semiconductor
5
4
Texas Instruments
1
Sandia (through Lockheed)
1
Schlumberger
2
(Xerox) PARC
2
2
3
3
Total
76
49
29
26
14
Total
7
19
16
13
11
5
20
10
24
31
15
9
1
1
2
10
203
Table 4: Number of interns accepted per company from 2000-2004.
The resurgence of interest in and support of the Internship Program is most welcome. It is a very popular
program among students, as it provides immersion in a corporate environment; an opportunity to be around
practicing engineers and scientists; exposure to new ideas and different ways of thinking; hands-on
experience in industry; and an opportunity to apply knowledge gained in courses. In fact, internships were
mentioned on the College Exit Survey by a number of students as being a highlight of their student careers,
and on the College 3-Year-Out Questionnaire by a number of alumni as something that the Department
should consider a requirement for its students.
The Industrial and Public Relations Office Info-Sessions (IPRO-IS). While focused on university research,
companies that are members of the IPRO are welcome to hold Info-Sessions to recruit undergraduates as
future employees. These info-sessions help our undergraduates understand the nature of the skills that are at
a premium in industry and assist them in planning their careers. In this case, the feedback about skills of
interest to industry is given directly to students.
The Industrial and Public Relations Office Employer Survey (IPRO-ES) provides feedback from our
industrial constituencies that helps us to determine the extent to which our curriculum is current, our
coverage broad, and our educational objectives and outcomes achieved. The Survey asks employers who
23
have an established record of hiring our graduating seniors to rate their desired attributes in an employee and
then to rate our recent graduates on those same attributes, as well as providing a section for comments. The
following few paragraphs are a discussion of recent results from this survey.
Specifically, we asked employer representatives (e.g., human resource personnel; recruiters; section
managers) to complete the survey to help us “gauge the extent to which our graduating seniors can step into
the professional world with poise, confidence, and ready contributions to make.” It comprises three sections
that ask about knowledge and abilities (e.g., math, design, engineering problem solving); skills and
experience (e.g., management potential, experience with current physical technologies, experience with
CAD/control/analysis packages); and habits (e.g., engineering ethics, importance of lifelong learning, work
ethics). The ratings are made on a 5-point scale for each of the entries in the three sections. The first set of
ratings assesses the employer’s desired attributes in an employee, where a rating of 5 is very important and 1
is not important. The second set of ratings assesses the degree to which our graduates possess those
attributes, where a rating of 5 indicates that the graduate shows knowledge and abilities, skills and
experience, and habits to a high degree and a rating of 1, to a low degree. Employer representatives were
also asked to rank our graduates as “Better,” the “Same,” or “Less good” than graduates from similar
institutions.
We sent requests to complete the web-based survey via email to 40 companies from which graduating
seniors had accepted jobs, according to their self-report on the College of Engineering’s Exit Surveys from
2000-2005. Among the companies that responded were Cypress Semiconductor; Cisco Systems, Inc.;
Chevron Information Technology; Google, Inc.; Bank of America; Altera Corporation; and Lockheed
Martin Space Systems Company. We had a 25% return rate, although 3 responding companies did not rate
our former students. Overall, our former students received fairly high ratings, and are seen as being
“exceptional when it comes to technical skill and knowledge.” Copies of the survey results are included in
Appendix III (D).
Observations from the IPRO-ES are a little tentative for two reasons. First, the response level was
disappointingly low; to improve upon this we are considering making it mandatory for future participation in
the program. Second, inherent flaws in the survey vitiate somewhat the value of the results. Among others,
no definitions are provided for any of the section terms, so when rating “professionalism,” for example, it is
difficult to know what exactly the rater has in mind. Then, too, in the “good old days,” only one or two
companies were major employers of our students and we could better direct our inquiry. These companies
could be surveyed more reliably than now, where start-ups and smaller companies hire one or two students
every five years. Ratings based on collective assessment of one or two employees may not give a
generalizable portrayal of our students’ abilities or habits. On the other hand, ratings based on collective
assessment of up to 20 employees from large companies such as Microsoft or IBM with many sub-divisions
located worldwide are often unreliable because ratings tend to be very impressionistic when made by one
person. Unfortunately, the survey did not ask how many of our former students upon which the ratings were
being based, although the presumption was that the number of ratees would correspond with the combined
totals observed in the College Exit Surveys.
Still, the comparisons between the company profiles and how our former students rate vis-à-vis them were
interesting; the real value of the survey, however, was to be found in the comments provided by raters and
in the understanding of what the responding companies look for in their employees. Raters for three
companies provided excellent comments that echo concerns our own faculty have as well, and which are
being discussed actively at the moment. Among these, Berkeley graduates are cited as having somewhat
deficient communication skills (written, oral, presentational), and as lacking business/corporate acumen.
Suggestions accompanying these comments were very worthwhile. For example, one respondent suggested
“building in more internship/co-op programs or creating class projects that are akin to how projects are run
in real companies,” in other words, “encouraging more ‘real-life’ engineering experience.” Given this type
of feedback, it is entirely possible that a new 19X series in both divisions may be implemented to address
just such a concern, and that a business course or two will be added to the basic curriculum.
Table 5 presents the results of the IPRO-ES for the seven companies who rated both their desired attributes
in an employee, as well as the level of these attributes attained by our graduates. The first thing we notice is
that for each of our seven companies Analysis, Engineering problem solving, and Work ethics are of prime
importance in their corporate cultures. The second thing we see is that in the majority of cases, our graduates
either exceed or match the attributes important to their hiring company. Those instances where our graduates
24
show weakness relative to the importance of a desirable attribute are in boldface. Even in such instances,
these weaknesses are not generally serious. Where we find larger discrepancies between companies’ desired
attributes and ratings for our graduates tend to be for Team player, Oral communication, and
Professionalism. When we average across companies and ratings, we see that being a team player (4.86/5.0),
having oral communication skills (4.71/5.0), being professional (4.71/5.0), and having a strong work ethic
(5.0/5.0) are very highly valued, while our grads tend to be seen as not being team players (3.86/5.0), as
having only average oral communication abilities (3.29/5.0), as being somewhat unprofessional (3.14/5.0),
and as having unconventional work ethics (3.83/5.0). Still, six out of our seven employer representatives
ranked our graduates as being “Better” when compared with graduates from similar institutions.
IPRO EMPLOYER SURVEY RESULTS
Attribute Importance to Company vs. Level of Attributes in UC Grads
Bank of
America
Altera
Lockheed
Martin
Cypress
Semi.
Cisco
Systems
Chevron
Google
D
5
4
4
5
3
3
1
5
4
4
G
4
3
4
4
4
5
D
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
5
4
5
G
5
3
4
3
2
3
5
2
4
5
4
5
5
3
4
3
3
5
3
5
5
2
4
4
4
5
5
3
Knowledge & Abilities
Math
Science
Engineering principles
Analysis
Design
Experimentation
Synthesis/Realization
Engineering problem solving
Broad education
Global/Societal perspective
D
3
1
3
5
4
3
5
5
3
4
G
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
3
3
D
3
4
5
5
5
4
4
5
3
3
G
5
4
5
5
5
4
4
5
4
3
D
5
3
4
5
4
3
4
5
3
2
G
4
3
5
5
5
4
4
4
3
3
D
2
1
5
5
3
3
4
5
3
1
G
3
3
5
4
2
2
4
4
3
2
D
2
3
5
5
4
4
4
5
4
4
G
5
5
5
5
5
3
5
5
3
4
Skills & Experience
Current physical technologies
Current software technologies
CAD/control/analysis packages
Independent
Team player
Management potential
Written communication
Oral communication
Graphical communication
Innovative/Creative
5
5
5
4
5
4
5
5
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
4
5
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
5
3
4
4
2
4
2
5
5
5
4
4
5
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
2
2
2
5
5
3
4
5
3
4
3
3
1
3
3
3
5
3
3
5
5
5
3
5
5
5
4
5
5
5
4
5
5
5
4
3
2
4
3
3
5
5
4
3
4
4
4
1
4
3
3
3
Habits
Engineering ethics
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
5
4
4
Professionalism
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
3
3
2
3
3
Work ethics
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
2
4
4
Importance of lifelong learning
4
4
5
5
4
3
5
5
5
5
5
3
4
Social awareness
5
5
5
4
1
4
5
4
4
5
4
3
4
Appreciation of diversity
5
5
5
5
5
1
4
5
5
4
4
5
4
4
* Attribute levels in bold indicate a negative disjunction between employer preference and ratings of the attribute in our
Blanks
grads. indicate that the rater either did not have enough information on which to rate or that the attribute is not job
necessary.
Table 5: IPRO-ES results. Here the “D” and “G” column entries indicate the attributes companies desire in
their employees and the level achieved by our graduates, respectively.
We are developing a new ILP employer survey, the Inventory of Software Development Skills, which also
includes sections for personal and team skills. The motivation for this new survey is the realization that
software engineering comprises a large proportion of the jobs being accepted by graduating seniors entering
the workforce. The new survey promises to correct some of the deficiencies in data gathering as were
25
reported above. Hence, it will be given to recruiters at info-sessions and the career fairs, to interviewers for
the Internship Program, as well as to hiring companies not taking part in the aforementioned events.
The College Exit Survey (CE-S) is another particularly valuable source of outcome information. The CE-S is
a self-report questionnaire containing items to be rated on 5-point scales (accompanied by comment
sections), as well as free-response questions. A rating of 5 indicates that the respondent feels “very well
prepared” and a rating of 1 indicates a feeling of complete ill preparedness. About 180 EECS students and
450 CoE students complete the exit questionnaire each year. With the requirement to complete the
questionnaire in order to receive tickets to the formal graduation ceremony, the fraction of students
completing the questionnaire is now very high. The questions include the mandatory outcomes for ABET
and also evaluate advising, the nature of educational experience in the College, etc. The numerical scores
allow comparison among departments. The free-response items are especially helpful regarding students’
perceptions of the program. The following few paragraphs are a discussion of recent results from this
survey.
Figure 4, below, presents a graphical summary of the mean rating scores for questions pertaining to each of
the ABET Criterion 3 a-k Outcomes on the College Exit Survey for years 2000-2005. The number of
students responding during these years beginning with 2000 was 196, 188, 127, 171, 172, and 227,
respectively.
1
2a
2b
3
4
5
6a
6b
6c
7
8
9
10
11
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
12a
Mean Class Response
CoE Exit Survey Ratings: 2000-2005
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
ABET Criterion 3-Related Questions
Figure 4: Graphical summary of mean ratings scores for ABET Criterion 3-related questions on CE-S for
years 2000-2005.
Please note that individual series lines, which represent the year the questionnaire was administered, are not
intended to be read as displaying a trend, as each item-related question is discrete. On the other hand,
comparing the series lines from year to year demonstrates a substantial amount of consistency among
graduating seniors in their ratings regardless of their year of graduation. This suggests that there is excellent
consistency from year to year in our educational programs. It will also be noticed that ratings are relatively
high for most of the ABET outcome questions, with the exception of those pertaining to understanding the
impact of engineering solutions in a global/societal context and that pertaining to a knowledge of
contemporary issues as they relate to engineering. Given these exceptions, our students feel that they possess
a high level of mastery of their areas of study by the time they graduate.
The percentage of students planning on entering graduate school directly after graduation is also interesting.
From responses given, we note that in 2000, 22% of our undergrads were headed for graduate school,
mostly in EECS. Percentages range from a low in 2001 of 14%, to 21% in 2002, 22% in 2003, a high of
25% in 2004, and 15% in 2005. The class of 2005 graduates is especially interesting in that 6 of the 34
students who were going to graduate school were headed for other professions, such as law, business, and
26
medicine. The CE-S also provides an indirect index of student awareness of the value of continuing
education. Students not immediately headed for graduate school are queried about their future plans on
returning to school to complete an advanced degree. From their responses to this question, 39% of our 2000
graduating class intend to pursue an advanced degree at some point; for 2001, 42% would like to do so; for
2002, 39% would like to eventually continue on, while 44% of our 2003 and 2004 graduates plan on doing
so; and finally, for 2005, a strong one-third, 37%, may eventually continue on.
Copies of the CE-S are in Appendix III (E).
The College of Engineering Three-Year-Out Alumni Survey (CE-3YO-AS) for years 2000-2005 is also
another valuable source of outcome information. It is similar to the College Exit Survey in its self-report
format, containing both free-response items and two ratings for each variant of the ABET Criterion 3
Outcomes queried. We list these below:
Q1: Applying the mathematics and science necessary for engineering practice.
Q2: Using techniques, skills and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice.
Q3: Designing and conducting experiments and analyzing their results.
Q4: Communicating effectively in oral presentations.
Q5: Communicating effectively in written presentations.
Q6: Working effectively in teams.
Q7: Designing systems, components, and processes to meet stated engineering requirements.
Q8: Identifying, formulating and solving engineering problems.
Q11: How well informed do you consider yourself on current events and on current political and social issues?
Q12a: How well did your experience at Berkeley prepare you for issues you have had to face involving
professional ethics and social impacts of your work?
Q12b: How important are professional ethics and social impacts of your work on the job?
The first ratings in Figure 5 ask the respondent how well prepared s/he was by his or her UCB education to
achieve the desired outcome skills; the second ratings in Figure 6 ask about the importance of that outcome
for one’s current job. In both figures, the responses to questions have been averaged. In Figure 6, question
number 11 was not asked in the survey. The final question on the survey asks respondents to rate how well
their education in the College prepared them for their careers. Comment sections follow each question.
The number of returns was not high, with an average response rate of 26 for the years 2000-2005; however,
the respondent comments about which skills are necessary for their jobs give valuable insight into the
importance of communicating effectively and having the ability to work well as part of a team.
Comparison of Figures 5 and 6, below, shows that our alumni who graduated from Fall 1996 to Spring
2002 (and were surveyed from 2000 to 2005) did not feel exceptionally well prepared in the oral or written
communication realm (Fig. 5, Q4 and 5), while these skills were deemed very important to success in their
current jobs (Fig. 6, Q4 and 5). Similarly, our alums did not deem themselves to be particularly well
prepared for facing issues involving professional ethics and the social impacts of their work (Fig. 5, Q12),
although this is not considered very important to their job success (Fig. 6, Q12). They also do not consider
themselves especially well informed about current events or current political and social issues (Fig. 5,
Q11). Finally, while our alums felt quite well prepared to work effectively in teams (Fig. 5, Q6) , they rate
this ability as one of the most important for their jobs (Fig. 6, Q6), with only the ability to identify,
formulate, and solve engineering problems being deemed more important for job success (Fig. 6, Q8), as
expected.
27
Mean Preparedness Ratings by Alumni for ABET Criterion 3 Outcomes
5
4.5
4
Ratings Range
3.5
3
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
CoE Survey Question
7
8
11
12
Figure 5: Mean preparedness ratings by alumni for ABET Criterion 3 Outcomes.
Figure 6: Mean importance-to-job ratings by alumni for ABET Criterion 3 Outcomes.
Consistent with our other surveys, the most valuable feedback can be found in the comment sections. Here
we find interesting suggestions that either have been implemented or can be implemented to improve the
program. For example, a number of respondents in all years commented that E 190, Technical
Communication, was one of the most useful classes they had taken at Cal. Those for whom it was an option
to take suggested making it part of the curriculum; those who were required to take it after it did become
part of the undergraduate curriculum were glad they did so. Then, too, some respondents noted that the
classes didn’t go far enough in providing training in making presentations to less technical people
(management, vendors, or customers) or for running a meeting. Further interesting observations and
comments follow:
 Need for business courses, venture design entrepreneurial courses
28
 Problem formulation and designing and conducting experiments and analyzing results is limited at
Berkeley and should be fostered by a mandatory senior project requirement
 Basic training in project management and engineering “best practices” should be required
 A mandatory ethics series should be instituted
 More real world-type projects should be required in classes
 Practical internships that emphasize business requirements and employment laws should be
mandatory
We view these comments as essential pointers leading us to re-evaluate our objectives and to the possibility
of program-strengthening curricular changes. It is clear, for example, that some sort of basic business course
would be a good addition to the curriculum. Further, a senior project requirement focusing on problem
formulation and analysis does not seem far fetched. Practical internships in a business setting are also a very
interesting possibility, as is a mandatory ethics course, both of which merit further exploration. When such
comments and/or suggestions are echoed by respondents participating in other surveys, we take note.
On the whole and with the exception of our 2003 (Fall 1999-Spring 2000 grads) surveyed alums, our former
students feel that they received an excellent education that prepared them well for their careers. See Figure
7, below:
Mean Preparedness-for-Career Ratings by Alumni
5
4.5
Ratings Range
4
3.5
3
2.5
Question 13 Response
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Year Surveyed
Figure 7: Mean preparedness-for career ratings by alumni on CE-3YO-AS.
Copies of the CE-3YO-AS are in Appendix III (F).
B.3 (7) Actions to Continually Improve the ECE and CSE Programs
Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Curriculum
At its 1997 Spring Retreat, the EECS faculty voted to undertake a substantial revision of its lowerdivision curriculum. The motivation might best be summed up as an intention that we be a department
of electrical engineering and computer sciences, as opposed to a department of electrical engineering or
computer sciences. Students studying computer science at Berkeley should receive grounding in larger
systems issues that go beyond software. Likewise, students studying electrical engineering should
receive grounding in the most pervasive and important use of electronics – the execution of software.
The Undergraduate Study Committee (comprising faculty from both the EE and CS divisions and two
EECS undergraduates) was charged with fleshing out the faculty’s resolution into specific curricular
proposals, which it did over the course of the next year. The EECS faculty received informal updates on
its progress at its scheduled weekly lunches. At a meeting in March 1998, it voted to accept the
29
committee’s recommendations. The change in emphasis involved substantial changes in one existing
course (EE 40), and institution of a new course on signals and systems (EE 20N), as well as new
requirements for existing courses (Math 55 and Engineering 190). The modified curriculum was sent to
the College for approval.
Center for Student Affairs Feedback in Student Services and Improvements
The goal of the CSA is to improve as much as possible the quality of education and quality of service
students receive at Berkeley. Berkeley is notorious for having a large, unwieldy, inflexible, impersonal
bureaucracy. The CSA is staffed with Student Affairs Officers (SAOs) who are eager to interact with
and assist students. The SAOs provide the friendly faces to hear from for students who are having
difficulty with some process or situation. Other sources of feedback are students in the IEEE Student
Branch, HKN, EECS Honors Students, student members of the department UGSC, and a Survey
Monkey survey of our current students in 2003 on the quality of advising.
The CSA has been led for several years by Professor Ron Fearing through the following changes and
improvements:
1) Advising: Our free-market course selection relies very heavily on student and faculty discussions of
course choices. At the 2003 Spring Retreat, the student leaders’ presentation alerted us to the fact that
some students felt that they were not getting adequate advising interactions with faculty. The CSA then
conducted a survey of students to understand the nature of the problem and suggest solutions.
The CSA survey revealed that most students prefer the more relaxed and lengthy discussion with their
faculty advisor in an early evening group advising session over the tightly scheduled individual advising
session. Based on this information the UGSC then recommended at a faculty meeting that group
advising be more widely adopted. Many of the faculty have now adopted the recommendation to use
group advising, finding that it is more informative, effective, and preferred by students. This leaves
more time for faculty to devote to those students desiring greater one-on-one interaction.
Following up on faculty suggestions, we were able to get email addresses for faculty advisees. Now
faculty members are able to correspond by email with their advisees. Automation is also used to
schedule faculty advising sessions, freeing up some time for more student services to be provided.
2) Graduate Student Instructor Assignments: Our GSI assignment process had previously been split
between the Center for Undergraduate Matters and the Graduate Office. By combining both groups into
the CSA, GSIs can be scheduled by a single person, who is aware of changing availability of graduate
students as they accept GSRs, fellowships, etc.
3) Internship Program and Career Fair: In Spring 2004, our summer internship program was heading
toward oblivion due to the high cost to companies of participating (membership fees, etc.). Students
from HKN offered to create an alternative internship service that would match any company with
interested students, and organized a Career Fair with technical recruiters from a number of companies in
attendance. This past year, HKN partnered with the UCB Career Center to sponsor the 4 th Annual Career
Fair, which was attended by 650 students, mostly from EECS. The interactions students have with the
technical recruiters provide pointers to what is “hot” on the career market, which helps students to plan
their course choices.
The idea of matching any company with interested students was a break-set idea that led to significant
changes in our Internship Program, which is overseen jointly by the Student Affairs Office and IPRO.
Internships are now open to all students who are interested in participating, as opposed to being
restricted to those having a 3.0 or higher GPA, which was formerly the customary practice. This
satisfied those companies preferring to groom their interns for post-graduation employment, as opposed
to hiring interns who would more than likely be going on to graduate school. Also, the Internship
Program is now open to any IPRO member company at no extra cost. Both of these factors combined
have contributed to a dramatic increase in company participation, jumping from a half dozen in 2004 to
20 in 2006. The Program also sponsors an EECS Internship Open House, which is a career-fair style
event showcasing the internship companies’ summer opportunities. The 2006 Open House, held in
January, was a major success, resulting in the 20 participating companies receiving on average 100
applications each!
30
Electronics and Hardware Labs
Our industry constituents have helped guide and facilitate the development of the 'hands-on' and design
components of our curriculum. We have been very fortunate in the last several years to construct and
fully instrument a new upper-division undergraduate laboratory for digital electronics, which is taken by
nearly every EECS student. This includes design software and the computers to run it, as well as 20
experiment stations. At the sophomore level, students can now make computer-automated measurements
as well as 'hands-on' measurements. For the circuits and device classes we now have the capability to
analyze characteristics as well as to fabricate and measure MOS and MEMS devices. The digital circuit
design class has a full suite of layout, extraction, timing, and SPICE simulation tools.
New Facilities for the Upper-Division Hardware Lab
The National Semiconductor Lab, which has a 3400sf footprint and originally comprised four smaller
rooms, has a number of users. The renovation cost was funded by industry donations. You may find
some historical information on: http://iesg/rooms/summer-fall2001upgrade/default.htm that includes the
initial motivation, plan, photos, and link to the Calinx board.
The primary user is CS 150, an upper-division undergraduate lab course with a major team project. CS
150's main goal is to introduce students to top-down digital system design. Specific lecture topics
include Boolean logic, gates, flip-flops, and timing; finite state machine design and analysis;
combinational building blocks including multiplexers, decoders, and ROM; sequential building blocks
including counters, shift registers and RAM; computer blocks, including data path and control units;
real-world issues such as transmission lines, impedance matching, and transients; and analog-to-digital
and digital-to-analog conversion. CS 150 has evolved over the past 30+ years and is a lab course that
succeeds in teaching the students fundamentals and theory, and at the same time requires the students to
apply it to real-world applications using a custom FPGA board.
Other users include CS 152, the upper-division undergraduate Computer Architecture class lab, in which
students specify, design, and in hardware implement and test their designs; as well as CS 251, a graduate
computer hardware lab that also uses a custom board to test and implement their designs.
The courses make use of the lab infrastructure that includes extensive AV configurations, including
projectors, plasma displays, a sound system, and webcasting capability. Weekly Friday afternoon lab
lectures are held for the entire class, giving the students an opportunity to see demos and ask questions
for the upcoming labs.
The lab's infrastructure is designed for maximum flexibility and group projects and interaction. Students
are given 24/7 cardkey access to the lab. In addition to 67 stations, there is a common area with round
tables for discussions, meetings, late night coffee and pizza; it is a place many students call their campus
home. It is also used for special training seminars for faculty between semesters, as well as for freshman
seminars (EE 24).
The FPGA board was designed in the Department with significant funding for fabrication and assembly
coming from research and our alumni in industry. It is based on a Xilinx FPGA with various interfaces
and I/O offering significant flexibility for projects. The board includes a quad Ethernet connection to a
reconfigurable four subnet local network, analog (audio and video) and significant digital I/O, as well as
a recently added USB, LCD, and Zigbee radio.
The tools used are industry standard for digital design, simulation, verification, and debugging.
The computers are the most current high speed, high RAM dual core Xeons, donated by Intel. A third of
the stations, used for scheduled labs, also have DMMs, function generators, MSOs (analog+digital
scopes), and power supplies.
A new Embedded Systems Lab has been envisioned and spearheaded by Department Chair Edward Lee.
Its development includes CITRIS, the Dean's office, IPRO, associated research groups and EE faculty,
ME faculty, and ESG staff.
Introductory Circuits Lab Upgrade
The Department has put significant industry resources behind the lab in 140 and 140AB Cory, which
sees some 1000 students per year. EE 40 labs, required for all EE undergraduates, are held in 140AB
31
Cory. It is comprised of 12 student stations and a teaching station. The EE C145L/C145M and EE
100/43 (for non-EE College of Engineering CS majors) labs are held in 140 Cory, which has 15 student
stations and a teaching station. Each teaching station includes a basic AV setup allowing instructors to
project instrument displays, paperwork, or 3-D objects from their computers. Lab lectures and pre-lab
lectures benefit from this feature.
The equipment in these sophomore electronics labs was recently upgraded thanks to donations from
National Instruments, Hewlett Packard, and CITRIS. This equipment includes state-of-the-art Data
Acquisition-IEEE 488 boards networking the instrumentation using LabVIEW, and for EE C145M, a
Cal-NI designed reprogrammable board allowing students to do real-time control and I/O in the
Windows environment. In order to run this new hardware and software, all the computers in the lab
have been upgraded to the best Hewlett Packard had to offer.
The 140 and 204b Cory labs are in serious need of infrastructure upgrades, including adequate air flow
and cooling. With only limited funding it has been possible to paint the labs. We are also concerned that
future equipment donations will be impacted with the separation of Agilent as a separate entity from
Hewlett-Packard. Also, the Campus funding for equipment replacement, originally from the COPHE
(offshore oil) and most recently ERF (state lottery) funding has decreased significantly in the past few
years. Each lab has a main faculty mentor, who works directly with technical staff (ESG) in charting and
implementing the future of the lab. The technical staff also works on an increasing basis directly with
the EE chair, IPRO, research (such as BWRC, the Microlab, and CITRIS), and with industry to
raise funds to upgrade and start new labs.
Development of a Lower-Division Signals and Systems Course (EE 20N)
In conjunction with establishing a core curriculum for our ECE and CSE students, we were determined
to develop an entirely new approach to signals and systems that would utilize a hybrid CS and EE
approach. This was a major challenge as lecture materials, labs, and exams had to be developed
simultaneously. Professors Varaiya and Lee undertook this effort. Mid-course surveys were used to gain
rapid feedback. The surveys indicated that the course was initially perceived as too abstract and without
any practical examples. This continuous improvement process has been repeated in many offerings and
today the course is well established.
Consolidation of Introduction to Electronics for Non-Majors
We are currently exploring the feasibility of combining EE 42, Introduction to Electronics for Letters
and Science students, with EE 100, Introduction to Electronics for non-EECS engineering majors. Much
of the lecture material is similar. However, engineering majors need hands-on introductory use of
computerized instrumentation. Computer Science students need an appreciation of why the
computational speed of circuits is data dependent and therefore requires synchronization via clocks. We
are continuing to obtain statistics on student performance in both courses. It is anticipated, however, that
the courses will be consolidated.
Development of a Communications Systems Course Common to CS and EE (EE 122)
The role and importance of EE 122, Introduction to Communication Networks, has changed
considerably over the last decade. Networking used to be a special topic, but now has become part of the
core knowledge expected from most EECS students. Moreover, EE 122 is one of few courses that
bridges EE and CS in the topics that are covered and in the courses for which it prepares. Recognizing
the changes in EE 122, the Department charged an Ad hoc Committee on EE 122 (Venkat Anantharam,
Anant Sahai, Scott Shenker, Ion Stoica, Jean Walrand), co-chaired by Professors Walrand and Stoica, to
make recommendations on how to redefine the course. The committee identified a number of issues with
EE 122. Projects are an important component of the course, but insufficient resources (GSIs) were
allocated to the design, supervision, and grading of the projects. Further, the course lacked consistency
from semester to semester, thus it was recommended that instructors should merge their teaching
material to consolidate it. Then, too, the committee recognized that there is an insufficient pool of
faculty ready to teach the course. To address these recurrent issues, the committee made very specific
recommendations to make the course equally accessible to CS and EE majors, most of which have been
implemented by the Department. Subsequent to this, enrollment has jumped from 30-40 students per
year to about 100.
32
Computer Security CS 161
As an example of a nearly perfect feedback loop between student requests, the Undergraduate Study
Committee, and the Chair, a new course in computer security has been developed by Professors Joseph,
Tygar, Vazirani, and Wagner. Offered in Fall 2005 as a CS 194, Special Topics course, it is now being
offered as a regular course, CS 161. It covers the most important features of computer security,
including topics such as cryptography, operating systems security, network security, and language-based
security. After completing this course, students will be able to analyze, design, and build secure systems
of moderate complexity.
UC-WISE
The UC-WISE project (University of California Web-based Instruction for Science and Engineering)
aims are:
 to provide technology and curricula for laboratory-based higher-education courses that incorporate
online facilities for collaboration, inquiry learning, and assessment;
 to allow instructors to customize courses, prototype new course elements, and collect review
comments from experienced course developers.
The UC-WISE Project Directors are Mike Clancy and Nate Titterton. They have support from the
National Science Foundation to develop UC-WISE curricula for introductory and intermediate
programming courses outside Berkeley, and are working with colleagues at three other U.C. campuses
(UCI, UCSD, and the new U.C. Merced) on this project. The UC-WISE system includes a database of
annotated learning objects, served by linking to the WISE learning environment developed in the School
of Education, plus portals into the database for students, instructors, and master curriculum developers.
Activities provided by WISE and used in a UC-WISE curriculum include online discussions,
programming exercises, reading of Web-delivered text, reflection notes, journal entries, quizzes, and
“gated collaborations” where students critique their peers’ responses to a seed topic. Instructors may
view some student work (e.g., quiz responses and collaboration activities) in real time.
We have so far produced lab-based UC-WISE curricula for three courses. CS 3 has been run in a labbased format since Spring 2003. More recently, we have piloted lab-based curricula for CS 4, a new
Java-based introductory programming course for engineering majors, and for CS 61B; the “beta version”
of the CS 61B curriculum was run in Fall 2005 for all CS 61B enrollees. More information is available
at the following URL’s:
 Two-page summary of the UC-WISE project:
http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~clancy/ucwise/ad.pdf
 Two-page pedagogical overview of UC-WISE benefits:
http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~clancy/ucwise/pedagogical.overview.html
 Five-page paper describing pilot introduction of UC-WISE into CS 3:
http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~clancy/ucwise/newroles.pdf
 Fifteen-page grant proposal for NSF grant funded last May:
http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~clancy/ucwise/ccliemd04_narrative.pdf
 Guest access to CS 61BL and CS 3L online curricula:
http://fall05.ucwise.org/about/guestAccess.php
Five-Year Bachelor/Master’s Program
Commencing in Fall 2006, this exciting combined Bachelor/Master’s Program is designed to transition
outstanding EECS and CS L&S undergraduates immediately into an intensive two-semester program
conferring the Master of Science degree. This combined program promotes interdisciplinary focus and is
best suited to those who are more “professionally oriented” as opposed to those wishing to pursue a
more traditional research-based and discipline-specialized advanced course of study. As such, a
distinguishing feature of this five-year program is its emphasis upon extended study in interdisciplinary,
though allied, technical fields such as physics, biology, and statistics, or in professional disciplines such
as business, law, or public policy. The program is aptly entitled, “Educating Leaders for the Emerging
Global Economy,” and reflects a growing need for those who are technically skilled and who also
33
possess an understanding of the business, legal, and social contexts of technology development and use.
Information on this program is available at http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/FiveYearMS/. It evolved
through many rounds of discussion led by Professor Randy Katz at faulty lunches, faculty retreats, and a
meeting with the Industrial Advisory Board.
Common First Year
EECS was interested in, but did not adopt, a common first year with the rest of the College of
Engineering. Our interest was in attracting good students, achieving better gender diversity, and
fostering interdisciplinary thinking of our students. Discussions within EECS were led by Professor
Katherine Yelick, who was a member of the College Committee. One of the discussion points was
whether an alternative to CS 61A, namely a CS 62A, could be developed that involved numerical
examples and simulation and that cut back on the programming paradigms somewhat. How this course
would interface with other courses in the College (E 77) and in EECS (CS 61B and the CS major) was
also considered. The issues could not be resolved and in the end EECS decided not to adopt the common
first year.
B.3 (8) Assessment Materials and Availability
Assessment materials that will be available for review during the site visit or in advance are described in
Table 6, below. The information is available in one of four modes: as part of the Self-Study Report, on the
EECS ABET CD-ROM, on the web, or in hard-copy form at the review. Much of it is on an internal EECS
faculty accessible website at: https://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/abet/.
Direct Assessment:
Self-Report
Course text
Graded samples of student work
Access to course web sites
Course webcasts
Course Skill-Acquisition Matrix (CSAM)
X
Course syllabi
X
Indirect Assessment:
HKN Course Survey (HKN-CS)
Course-Specific Survey (CS-S)
X
Ugrad Student Officers and Chairs Dialog (UGSO-CD)
Ugrad Student Presentations to Faculty (UGS-SP)
Center for Student Affairs Advising Survey (CSA-AS) and Summary
X
Industrial Advisory Board Notes (IAB)
IPRO Summer Internship Program documents (IPRO-SI)
IPRO Employer Survey (IPRO-ES)
X
College of Engineering Exit Surveys (2000-2005) (CE-S)
X
College of Engineering 3-Year-Out Alumni Surveys (2000-2005)
X
(CE-3YO-AS)
CD
Web
Review
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Table 6. Deliverables and means of presentation to ABET Site Committee.
B.3 (9) Evaluation of Individual Outcomes
Outcome (1), "an ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering to the
design of systems involving electronic or software components.”
The knowledge acquired in mathematics, science, and engineering courses is demonstrated during the
learning process by scores on homework and exams and by proficiency in further use in subsequent
courses. The CSAM shows that this is of very high priority at all three course levels LD-RC, UD-CC, and
UD-TA. Self-ratings on the Alumni 3-Year-Out Questionnaire (CE-3YO-AS) document that graduates do,
indeed, believe themselves to have been fairly well prepared in this area, averaging 4.2/5.0. Self-ratings on
34
College Exit Surveys (CE-S) also bear this out, where average ratings are high (CE-S 4.0/5.0). Ratings
from our industrial constituents on the Employer Survey (IPRO-ES) show that our grads either match or
exceed company expectations in this area in all but five instances, and then the negative disjunction is but
one step lower. On the other hand, alumni report that applying mathematics and science is not particularly
important to their jobs (CE-3YO-AS 3.7/5.0), although having the ability to identify, formulate, and solve
engineering problems most definitely is important (CE-3YO-AS 4.5/5.0).
Outcome (2), "an ability to configure, apply test conditions, and evaluate outcomes of
experimental systems.”
Experiments are conducted in the required physics courses. Designing and conducting experiments is an
inherent part of the electronic laboratory associated with EE 40 and the systems laboratory for EE 20N.
Essentially the same skills are used in construction and debugging of computer programs, as required in the
CS 61 series. Laboratories and assignments associated with upper-division courses involve more extensive
experience in design and conducting experiments, and analyzing and interpreting the data. The CSAM
shows that Outcome (2) is medium in LD-RC, high in 3 of 5 UD-CC, and high in all of the UD-TAs except
CS theory, as naturally expected. Courses with large enrollments in which the CSAM indicates Outcome
(2) is high include: EE 105, EE 122, EE 141, EE 143, CS 150, CS 162, CS 164, and EE 192. College Exit
Survey (CE-S) results show that our recent graduates do not believe themselves to be particularly well
prepared to design and conduct experiments, with average ratings of 3.6/5.0, which is rather low. On the
other hand, they are considerably more confident of their ability to analyze and interpret data, with average
ratings of 4.1/5.0. The comments in this survey are a bit bimodal. Students rave about CS 150, EE 141, and
a few other courses. Other students who narrowly interpret the outcome point out that there is not much of
this in CS. The faculty, however, consider the characterization of the performance of student-authored
codes on various example data sets to be an example of Outcome (2). Alumni, however, report that
designing and conducting experiments and analyzing their results are not particularly important on-the-job
skills; their preparedness ratings (CE-3YO-AS 3.7/5.0), however, are consistent with those of our recently
exiting graduates. Fortunately, at least for our seven industrial employers, an ability to conduct experiments
is not a prime attribute looked for when hiring our grads, although the ability to analyze and interpret
results, for which our graduates are rated highly (IPRO-ES 4.3/5.0), is important.
Outcome (3), "an ability to design systems, components, or processes that conform to given
specifications and cost constraints.”
Most of the courses in the program build directly or indirectly toward this outcome. An upper-division
engineering course providing a major design experience based on the knowledge and skills acquired in
earlier coursework and incorporating engineering standards and realistic constraints is explicitly required.
The current EECS design courses meeting this requirement are high in the CSAM data including EE 128,
EE 130, EE 140, EE 141, EE 143, EE 145L, EECS 145M, EE 192, CS 150, CS 152, CS 160, CS 162, CS
164, CS 169, CS 184 CS 186, and CS 188. Other classes also high in design in the CSAM data, including
EE 118, EE 122, EE 123, EE 129, EE 142, CS 170, CS 174, are especially relevant. The CSAM shows
medium level in LD-RC (as expected), and high levels in all 5 UD-RC and in all 6 UD-TA. Given that
recent graduates feel that EECS is design intensive, it comes as no surprise that they consider themselves to
be quite well prepared in this area (CE-S 4.0/5.0). Students really like CS 150 and are strong on EE 141,
EE 140, and EE 192, while also mentioning EE 123, CS 152, CS 164, and CS 184 as courses having strong
design elements. Our alumni affirm this sense of preparedness (CE-3YO-AS 4.1/5.0), and consider it an
ability that is very important to their jobs (4.3/5.0). Our industry respondents essentially find our former
students to be good, though not exceptional, designers (IPRO-ES 3.9/5.0)
Outcome (4), "an ability to work cooperatively, respectfully, creatively, and responsibly as a
member of a team.”
As shown by the CSAM, the experience of working in teams is primarily at the upper division and mostly
in the advanced courses in UD-TA. This is for pedagogical reasons in programming, where students are
required to work individually in the CS 61A,B,C series to develop at least a minimal set of skills before
participating in the software teams used in upper-division courses such as in CS 162. Other important
examples are EE 140, EE 141, EE 192, CS 150, CS 152, CS 169, and CS 184. Only the CS Theory area
does not currently emphasize working in teams. Teams are emphasized heavily in industry, however. Our
recent graduates feel very well prepared to function on teams (CE-S 4.0/5.0), as do our alumni (CE-3YO-
35
AS 4.1/5.0). In fact, our alumni rate the ability to work effectively in teams as one of the most important of
on-the-job skills (4.5/5.0). It is interesting to note, however, that our corporate respondents value team
players (IPRO-ES 4.9/5.0), but do not see our graduates as being such (3.9/5.0). In the future we should
investigate this point further with more carefully designed questions and more extensive data. When seen in
the context of the relatively low rating given to our graduates on work ethics (IPRO-ES 3.8/5.0) and
professionalism (IPRO-ES 3.1/5.0), being a “team player” in the corporate world may involve other factors
having more to do with adapting from small creative team efforts in academia to large and highly structured
team efforts required for timely completion of products in industry.
Outcome (5), "an ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems.”
Most of the courses in the program lead directly or indirectly to this outcome. The major design courses
are especially relevant. The CSAM shows Outcome (e) to be high in all 5 LD-RC, all 5 UD-CC, and all 6
UD-TA. Students are very self-confident about their ability (CE-S 4.1/5.0), but they also feel that our
program is very theoretical and not ‘real-world’ practical – an observation that has been reiterated by
alumni and our industrial respondents. It is clear, however, that this is singularly the most important ability
our employers desire in their employees (IPRO-ES 5.0/5.0), and our former students do not disappoint (CE3YO-AS 4.3/5.0). It is also deemed by alumni to be the most important on-the-job ability to possess (CE3YO-AS 4.5/5.0).
Outcome (6), "an understanding of the norms of expected behavior in engineering practice and
their underlying ethical foundations.”
This Outcome may be a case where the students themselves are not aware that they have acquired a valued
attribute. The EECS faculty has an unusually high level of first-hand experience in engineering practice
through start-ups, consulting and participation with government and professional societies. This naturally
leads to an informal exposure of the students that flavors classes. Since these subjects are not explicitly
covered in Course Descriptions, even the faculty response in the CSAM data is weak in all three levels LDRC, UD-CC and UD-TA. There is an effort to explicitly discuss material on ethics in classes such as the
“Social Implications of Computing” offered by one of our CS professors, but it has consistently low
enrollment rates and is usually taken by students outside of EECS. Classes on ethics are also offered in BioEngineering and Nuclear Engineering. Students report only occasional discussion in classes and that much
of their understanding comes from breadth classes and life experiences. It comes as no surprise, then, that
ratings on the College Exit Survey are relatively low (CE-S 3.6/5.0). Results from the Alumni
Questionnaire suggest the same (CE-3YO-AS 3.4/5.0), that is, that their experiences at Berkeley have
proved only moderately helpful in preparing them to face issues involving professional ethics and the social
impacts of their work. Similarly, alumni don’t particularly see the importance of professional ethics and
social impacts as very important on the job (CE-3YO-AS 3.6/5.0). This is in sharp contrast to our industry
respondents, who collectively place quite high value on engineering ethics (IPRO-ES 4.86/5.0) and work
ethics (IPRO-ES 5.0/5.0). While students and faculty do not perceive achieving Outcome (6), employers
give our graduates high marks for practicing engineering ethics (IPRO-ES 4.5/5.0).
Outcome (7), "an ability to communicate effectively by oral, written, and graphical means.”
Engineering 190, a course in technical communication, is now required for all students in the program
despite ABET concern that it should not be counted toward engineering units. Written and oral
communication skills as used in engineering are both included. The major design courses also have written
project reports and sometimes oral reports, which are criticized and graded to improve communication
skills. The CSAM shows medium experience in communication in LD-RC and UD-CC and medium to
high levels of experience in UD-TA due to their increased project components. When queried on the Exit
Survey about their preparation to communicate effectively in writing, in oral presentation, and in
interpersonal/team communications, students show modest confidence for written and oral
communicational effectiveness (CE-S 3.9/5.0 and 3.7/5.0, respectively), and fairly strong confidence for
interpersonal/team communication skills (CE-S 4.1/5.0). Students comment that thanks to E 190 they feel
prepared in writing and interpersonal/team skills, however they are concerned about their oral presentation
skills. Comments suggest that E 190 is generally positively valued in that it was a great help, but sometimes
there is a significant negative split in that E 190 is perceived as a waste of time. It is anything but a waste of
time, for our employers report that the ability to communicate effectively in both oral and written
presentations is quite important (IPRO-ES 4.7/5.0 and 4.4/5.0, respectively), and our graduates do not fare
particularly well when rated (3.7/5.0 and 3.3/5.0, respectively). As commented upon by one of our alumni
36
in the College 3-Year-Out Questionnaire, one would think that the ability to make presentations to less
technical people such as administrators, customers, or vendors, or to run meetings would be quite critical
for job success in today’s market, so it is a little surprising that companies do not place more emphasis on
graphical means of communicating (IPRO-ES 3.3/5.0). On the whole, many of our alumni were not
required to take E 190; ratings indicate that they did not feel particularly well prepared to communicate
effectively orally or in written form (CE-3YO-AS 3.2/5.0 and 3.7, respectively), although the importance to
their jobs was recognized clearly (4.0/5.0 and 4.2/5.0, respectively). Our decision to make E 190 mandatory
is one that we do not regret.
Outcome (8), "an awareness of global and societal concerns and their importance in developing
engineering solutions.”
The highly diverse and socially conscious Berkeley environment is an education in itself. Six courses are
required in humanities and social sciences, which expose EECS students to the thinking of all students at
Berkeley in a broader environment. In addition, the University has graduation requirements in history and
American institutions. Together this amounts to about 1/5 of the unit requirements for graduation. Also the
EECS faculty are often involved in university research and industry/government projects, which often are
of global concern and which require engineering solutions to be contextualized accordingly. In the course
of the survey (CSAM), faculty indicate that the expected level of achievement of outcome 8 is low in
lower-division courses (LD_RC) and medium in upper division (UD-CC and UD-TA). The College Exit
Survey (CE-S) shows 3.4/5.0, which is relatively low. EECS students comment that they do not interact
much, even with other engineering disciplines. There is little discussion of ethics and social issues in EECS
classes and students rely on other interactions and Humanities and Social Sciences classes. Students do cite
discussions in CS 61A, CS 169, CS C195, E 191, E 195, E 124, and BioE 100. Berkeley EECS graduates
tend to be viewed as having a very specialized education that doesn’t particularly lend itself to an
awareness of global or societal concerns (IPRO-ES 3.0/5.0) as a broader education might (IPRO-ES
2.9/5.0), although they are perceived as being socially aware (IPRO-ES 4.0/5.0) and as having an
appreciation for diversity (IPRO-ES 4.4/5.0). It is interesting to note that social awareness and appreciation
for diversity are valued more highly than are having a broad education and a global/societal perspective
(IPRO-ES 4.1/5.0 and 4.3/5.0 vs. 3.4/5.0 and 3.3/5.0, respectively), which may reflect a desire for
specialists with open minds given today’s competitive international market conditions.
Outcome (9), "an ability to independently acquire and apply required information, and an
appreciation of the associated process of life-long learning.”
The planning of courses with their advisor helps students evaluate opportunities and develop a sense of
ownership for their own careers. The CSAM shows a high variance in the faculty evaluation of the likely
level of Outcome (9) in courses at all three levels, probably owing to the difference in interpretation of how
the recognition takes place. Our recent graduates clearly recognize the importance of life-long learning
(CE-S 4.2/5.0) and our alumni report (CE-3YO-AS) that reading professional journals, attending
professional conferences, attending professional or company-sponsored courses and seminars, taking
courses toward an advanced degree, and maintaining membership in professional organizations are all
means by which they maintain their expertise. Our industry respondents place great value on this (IPRO-ES
4.4/5.0), and see our former students as deeply invested in life-long learning as they are (IPRO-ES 4.3/5.0).
This should come as no surprise, as one would expect that Berkeley's atmosphere of fast-moving research
would make it clear that one has to keep up with developments in one's field.
Outcome (10), “a knowledge of contemporary issues.”
We approach this basic outcome in two ways. First, as an index of how well informed our students are on
current events and on current political and social issues, we see Berkeley's social environment as a genuine
asset. It provides a vibrant milieu abounding with diverse points of view and cultural events. A second way
to look at this outcome bears on knowledge of contemporary issues as they relate to engineering, which is
how it is posed in the College Exit Survey. Form this point of view we believe the department's active
research environment tends to bring contemporary technical issues to the fore. This is especially true of
contemporary technical issues that are often used as the basis of homework and design projects. The CSAM
shows medium levels at LD-RC, higher levels at UD-CC, and quite high levels in UD-TA. Results from the
College Exit Survey, however, indicate that our students don’t see themselves as particularly
knowledgeable of contemporary issues as they relate to engineering (CE-S 3.6/5.0), which is somewhat
surprising. Our alumni also don’t see themselves as particularly informed about current events in general
37
either (CE-3YO-AS 3.8/5.0). The students comment favorably about classroom discussion of contemporary
technical issues, but report that non-technical aspects are seldom discussed. Given today’s rapidly changing
socio-political situation as it impacts upon the economy and market conditions, we would like to see a
stronger showing on this outcome in future.
Outcome (11), "an in-depth ability to use a combination of software, instrumentation, and
experimental techniques practiced in circuits, physical electronics, communication,
networks and systems, hardware, programming and computer science theory.”
Historically, Berkeley is very strong in the development and use of modern engineering tools such as
SPICE. Today, much of the educational process is enabled by software packages. MATLAB is used in EE
20N. A broad range of languages, including Scheme, JAVA, and C are used in the CS 61 series. Students
have begun using the Eclipse Integrated Development Environment in CS 61B and upper-division software
courses. LabView is used in EE 40. In the upper division, Verilog, Synplicity Synplify, Xilinx Virtex E,
ChipScope, Modelsim, and instrumentation such as the HP/Agilent 56645D Oscilloscope are used in CS
150. Layout tools and HSPICE are used in EE 141. On the physical hardware side, special boards with
multiple internet ports were developed for CS 150, and modern instrumentation was obtained from HP for
measuring devices in EE 130 and EE 143. An undergraduate microfabrication laboratory allows the
fabrication and testing of MOS and MEMS devices.
The CSAM shows that the use of modern engineering tools is quite high at all 3 levels LD-RC, UD-CC and
UD-TA. The College Exit Survey (CE-S) shows 3.9/5.0, which is surprisingly low. Students are quite
positive overall, but they point out that we have antiquated labs and outdated CAD tools compared to
industry standards. Alums point out that other schools where they are taking classes have a more modern
curriculum in specific areas of interest, such as in fiber optics. Our students clearly want a competitive
edge. But just how modern and comprehensive our facilities can be is a matter of resources, corporate
relations and the limited set of technical frontiers that can be covered by 80 faculty. A major benefit is that
many of the tools that become available through collaboration with industry on research soon find their
way into our undergraduate courses. This applies both to software design packages, to electronics labs and
to our microfabrication laboratory.
B.3 (10) Policy for Admission of Transfer Students
For admission of transfer students, the applicant's transcript is reviewed by the University’s Admissions
Office to determine if courses that are completed at other institutions are UC transferable. Transfer students
are only accepted at the junior level (60-89 semester units) and must have completed prior to enrollment at
least 80% of the required lower-division courses for the major to which they are applying. In each
applicant's file is a lower-division course worksheet prepared by the Student Affairs Advisors from the
College of Engineering to determine the completeness of this work. The worksheet information is part of
the criteria used for admitting students.
Applications are received from the UC centralized processing unit. Applications go to the Admissions
Office for preparation. Applicants must have at least 60 transferable semester units by the end of the spring
term prior to fall enrollment. Approximately two files for every admit position (determined by a grade
point average cut-off) are prepared for the evaluators, each of which includes a worksheet that shows overall grade point average, colleges from which courses were taken, number of transferable units, lowerdivision preparation, and grades received in those courses.
Each file is reviewed twice: once by a faculty representative from the department to which the applicant
has applied and once by an SAO from the College of Engineering Student Affairs Office. Each reviewer
independently gives the applicant a grade and makes appropriate comments on a roster form. Criteria used
in the admissions process include the completeness of the applicant's lower-division preparation, the level
of academic achievement reflected in the student's grade point average, evidence of interest in the student's
chosen major, and a match between the academic program and the student's academic and career objectives
as shown in the personal statement.
A faculty adjudicator, usually the department's Admissions Chair or the Department Chair, makes the
department's selection based on these scores and recommends these students to the Associate Dean for
Academic Affairs. These names are then forwarded to the Admissions Office, and they notify the
applicants.
38
B.3 (11) Procedures to Validate Credit for Courses Taken Elsewhere
The University of California has course articulation agreements with all California Community Colleges
that specify procedures to validate credit for courses taken elsewhere. In cooperation with the UC Office of
the President, each campus has an Articulation Office within the Office of Admissions that coordinates the
articulation of courses with the Colleges and departments. When the Articulation Office receives a request
from a California Community College for a review of a course, it is sent to the Student Affairs Office in the
College of Engineering for initial review. It is then sent to the department faculty member best suited to
determine the equivalency of the course. The approval or denial is sent to the Articulation Office with
comments.
For courses from colleges where no articulation agreements exist, after acceptance to the College of
Engineering, students must follow the course evaluation procedure. They first meet with their Student
Affairs Advisors who give them a form to present to the department faculty member best suited to evaluate
the course. Students provide the course descriptions, the course syllabi, and other relevant material. The
faculty member may grant full credit, partial credit, or no credit. For courses given partial credit, the faculty
member or department may offer a bridge course (e.g., EE 47 or EE 147) to complete missed work.
B.4 Professional Component
The program requires a minimum of 30 units (one year) of natural sciences, mathematics, and statistics
including: (a) At least 11 units of natural science, including Physics 7AB or H7AB, and one course chosen
from among: Physics 7C or H7C (recommended); Chemistry 1A (recommended); Biology 1A
(recommended); Astronomy 7AB; Biology 1B; Chemistry 1B, 3AB, 4AB, and 5; Molecular and Cell Biology
32/32L; or an upper-division course in Astronomy, Biology, Chemistry, Earth and Planetary Science,
Integrative Biology, Molecular and Cell Biology, Physics, or Plant and Microbial Biology; and (b) Math
1AB, 53, and 54.
A course in discrete mathematics and/or probability and statistics: Math 55 or CS 70 is required for students
following Option III (Computer Systems) or Option IV (Computer Science). Students following Option I
(Electronics), Option II (Communication, Networks, and Systems) or Option V (General) may substitute a
course on probability and statistics chosen from the following list: Stat 20 (permitted for junior transfer
students taken at a community college only), Stat 134, or EECS 126. EECS 126 counts as upper-division
EECS units under requirement 2, and CS 70 counts as Engineering units under requirement 2.
A minimum of one-and-a-half years of engineering topics is also required, although, in fact, most students
take more than this. Specifically, a total of 45 units of engineering courses, including at least 20 units of
upper-division EECS courses. A student may count any letter-graded course (lower- or upper-division) in the
College of Engineering toward the 45-unit requirement. We encourage students to consider taking courses
outside the department. In the past, we have found the following courses to be of particular interest: CEE 106
and 130; E 36, 45, 66, 115, 177, 118, 120, and 166; MSME 102 and 111; ME 102A, 104, 134, 135, and 136;
and NE 101 and 107. This list is suggested, not exclusive.
To promote better understanding of the humanities and social sciences, the College of Engineering has
established degree requirements for the humanities and social studies. These requirements can be found in the
on-line EECS Undergraduate Orientation Notes and in the information provided to students by the College of
Engineering. This information is summarized as follows.

A minimum of six (6) Humanities and/or Social Studies courses (3 units or more) from the
Humanities/Social Studies List. (The only exception is that students in double major programs
may take only five courses.)

At least two of the six courses must be upper division courses.

At least two courses, one of which must be an upper division course, must be from the same
department

Students must complete both parts of the College of Engineering Reading and Composition
requirement for a letter grade.
39

One of the six courses must satisfy the campus American Cultures requirement. Refer to
http://amercult.berkeley.edu/ for the requirement and courses.

No more than two of the six H/SS courses can be satisfied by advanced placement tests.
In addition to the six (6) humanities course requirements, students must also complete four (4) University
requirements (American Cultures, American History, American Institutions, and English Proficiency).
In addition to the six required humanities and social studies courses, a course in Technical Communication
(technical writing and oral communication, Engineering 190) is required.
Each student is required to complete an upper-division engineering course providing a major design
experience based on the knowledge and skills acquired in earlier coursework and incorporating engineering
standards and realistic constraints. Students may choose from such courses in order that they may enjoy a
design experience related to the emphasis of their studies. As mentioned earlier, the current EECS design
courses are: EE 118, EE 120, EE 121, EE 122, EE 123, EE 128, EE 129, EE 130, EE 140, EE 141, EE 142,
EE 143, EE C145B, EE C145L, EE C145M, EE 192, CS 150, CS 152, CS 160, CS 161, CS 162, CS 164, CS
169, CS 170, CS 174, CS 184, CS 186, and CS 188.
B.5 Faculty
The overall strength of the faculty in our department is well known. We have achieved high rankings in wellregarded studies such as the U.S. News and World Report. Our faculty teaches courses that are related to their
research interests and they often refer to the latest developments in their teaching. In 2005-2006 we had 83.49
faculty FTE and we expect to add four more faculty in July 2006. With two retirements and one resignation,
that will bring us to 84.49 FTE, who are evenly divided between EE and CS. We have hired two multi-year
lecturers, one in EE and one in CS, giving us a total of four lecturers. Their FTEs are included in the above
numbers.
Our faculty is actively involved in student advising. They participate extensively on departmental committees
(see Appendix I.E.) and College of Engineering Committees (Appendix I.F). Many of our faculty participate
in the Academic Senate at the campus or system-wide level. Additionally our faculty are involved in the
National Academy of Engineering (36 members), the IEEE (50 fellows including emeriti), the SCM (13
fellows), and the National Academy of Sciences (5 members). Many faculty members serve as editors of
journals or chairs of conference sessions. Faculty members earn one sabbatical credit for each semester they
teach and they regularly engage in sabbatical leaves. Many serve on boards of directors for companies or have
started companies of their own. All our faculty members regularly attend and present papers at numerous
professional conferences each year.
B.6 Facilities
B.6 (1) The classrooms, labs and instructional facilities in EECS come under the direction of the
department's Computing, Networking and Instructional Laboratories Committee, under our Vice Chairman
for Computing and Networks. This committee is charged with preparing, reviewing, and revising our plans
for instructional laboratory equipment. They work with our senior staff supervisors in the instructional
computing and electronics groups to prepare our annual request to campus for instructional equipmentreplacement funds and also to prepare ad-hoc requests for industrial donations.
Eleven programmer and engineering career staff and several student staff provide technical support for all
EECS classes, including computer accounts and software, computing and electronics labs, audio-visual and
multimedia devices and electronic equipment. This experienced engineering and technical staff works
closely with faculty, research, and academic personnel to insure ongoing review and planning for updating
facilities, equipment, experiments, curricula, and student projects.
All students in EECS classes receive accounts on distributed clusters of UNIX and Windows computers, as
needed for the coursework of each class. They can connect to their accounts and shared application
programs over the Internet from remote computers in dorm rooms, etc., via our login servers and WEBbased application servers. Each student can maintain a personal WEB site on our WEB server. Each student
has an associated email account and can logon to these resources from any Internet computer. Students can
access restricted license servers from off campus by logging on via the campus VPN. Computer resources
40
and security are integrated with other departmental and campus services. Students in EECS keep these
accounts without interruption throughout their period of enrollment.
The instructional lab facilities in EECS utilize approximately 10,000 square feet of lab space using state-ofthe-art instrumentation, automation, and audio-visual equipment. Students can access the computer labs
24x7 using our cardkey access system. There are 16 labs and several large servers for computing, home
directories, WEB servers, email, database, and video streaming. The electronics labs are integrated with the
computing infrastructure and supplement material covered in lectures. Over 5,000 students have accounts
on our clusters each semester, sharing about 410 workstations (a ratio of 12:1). At a given time, one third
or more of the logged-in users are accessing our computers over the net from off-site locations.
Nevertheless, the labs are often filled when projects and finals are due.
The staff salaries and equipment for instructional support are funded from state instructional sources. The
budget is received from the College on an annual basis, as well as from industry donations. The
instructional budget averages about $112 per student per semester. In addition, we receive generous
equipment and software grants.
Notable instructional features and initiatives include:
 The lectures of 8 classes a semester are streamed live to Internet webcasts and podcasts and are
also available for later viewing via the WEB. Selected lectures from previous semesters are also
available.
 All courses have current and archived WEB sites on the EECS Instructional WEB server, as well
as access to extensive services on the campus-wide course management system (b-Space).
 EECS majors can maintain e-portfolios of their projects on their personal EECS Instructional
WEB sites. These sites can include dynamic content such as wikis and CGI programs.
 Intel makes donations to EECS of instructional computers and components worth as much as
$100,000 annually. In the past year, Intel has donated a new High Performance Computing Lab
and a new Mixed Signal System Lab.
 Microsoft Research donates most of the Windows operating systems and applications that are
installed on the EECS computers. In addition, Microsoft donates access to a large collection of
software that students in EECS classes can download to their home computers. The primary
benefit for EECS is that each student can obtain the Visual Studio compilers for free (worth $800)
for use at home.
 SUN Microsystems has donated a lab of their new AMD-based desktop computers and several
labs of SunRay Xterminals. Their annual matching grants have allowed us to purchase and
upgrade several 4- and 8-processor SPARC servers, which are used by classes for compiling
projects and for running CAD simulations.
 Hewlett Packard recently donated 20 laptops in response to a grant request from faculty for a
Collaborative Computing Lab. Students team up on programming assignments by sharing the
laptops.
 Vodafone donated equipment for the instructional Wireless Lab, which is used by EE 117 and for
graduate projects.
 Conexant donated equipment for the undergraduate Systems Lab, which is used by courses in
microelectronic devices and digital ICs, as well as by "Technology for Living," which is a new
course aimed at involving engineering students in community service projects.
 The classes have access to industry-quality software tools, such as: Cadence, Synopsys,
Tsuprem4, Medici, Xilinx, HSPICE, Matlab, Mathematica, Eclipse, Maya, Allegro LISP, and
OpenJade.
 The undergraduate Semiconductor Fabrication laboratory has a lithographic clean room, logic
analyzers, and microscope probe stations.
41
B.6 (2) The Instructional & Electronics Support Group (IESG) provides software for networks of
machines in our facilities. Students in all software courses have access to implementations of Scheme on
several platforms, Sun's implementation of Java, and to the free software gcc and g++ (C and Standard C++
compilers that are integrated parts of the same package, together with their standard libraries), Emacs (a
text editor incorporating a flexible debugging interface), and gdb (a debugger for C, C++, and several other
languages).
We expect students in our software courses to use these tools, and typically have some discussion of them
in labs, although there is ongoing debate on the amount of specific instruction in their use that is
appropriate. Some students work with their own computers at home, where they may have a different set of
tools, and we are reluctant to interfere with this.
The instructional labs also provide access to two free source-code control systems – CVS and PRCS.
These would be particularly appropriate tools for upper-division courses with large projects, and students
have used them in such courses, but their use is not yet routine.
B.7 Institutional Support and Financial Resources
Every year, near the beginning of the calendar year, our department participates in the annual campus budget
process. We are given the opportunity to discuss and prioritize our most important funding needs and to
provide justification for incremental or additional funding requests. Our department receives an operating
budget from campus state funds that covers the full cost of our faculty salaries (83.49 FTE in Fiscal year 20052006) and provides an additional 48.18 FTE in staff assistance (29.53 FTE administrative/clerical and 18.65
FTE technical). Our Engineering Dean and the campus administration have been very receptive to our requests
for additional faculty members. We are authorized to grow by four faculty FTE by July 2006. We currently
have a request pending for an additional seven faculty FTE; we will likely get approval for four of these
positions.
Given the amount of staff effort it takes to support our large number of faculty and students, we find our
current staffing only barely adequate to cover our administrative and instructional needs. Fortunately we do
have a rich mixture of funding. Gift funds and federal contracts and grants funds are used to employ more than
100 additional staff to assist with research activities. This staff is part of the Engineering Research Support
Organization managed by the College of Engineering.
Similarly, our state operating budget of $340,000 covers only our most minimal needs such as telephones,
photocopying and mailing with little left over to cover office supplies, computing infrastructure needs,
furniture, and other necessities. We augment our state funding heavily from gift sources. In fiscal year 200405, we spent $400,000 in gift funds on such basic needs as sending new faculty members to teaching
workshops and providing competitive start-up packages for new faculty members. We also use gift funds to
augment our student programs so that we can provide an Internship Program, an Honors Program, and other
activities to support our undergraduates.
Our Director of Diversity, Dr. Sheila Humphreys, is very creative and innovative. Programs she has started
here at Berkeley have been used as models by many other colleges and universities across the country. Our
staff budget officers, Catherine Riley and Jeanette Cook, are very knowledgeable and skillful, and our College
budget officer has very solid professional skills. Together, this staff supports our faculty initiatives and
provides sound financial counsel when new initiatives are contemplated.
Faculty professional development is addressed in a number of different ways. Each incoming faculty member
is given a senior faculty mentor to help guide him or her for an indefinite period of time after their arrival.
Since the faculty mentor is selected based on research interests, this is usually the beginning of a collaboration
that will last for the full time of their association with our department. Typically the faculty mentor helps the
new faculty member with course preparation and delivery issues as well as grant proposal writing. In addition,
our Department Chair and Associate Chair meet monthly with all new faculty members for breakfast to
discuss issues such as what is expected for merit and tenure promotion cases. New faculty members are
encouraged to learn about the Berkeley Academic Senate and all faculty members participate in one or more
professional societies. Almost our entire faculty participates as consultants to outside industries; these close
ties keep them on the cutting edge of the challenges faced in the industrial scene. Our faculty also participate
42
as editors of professional journals, as organizers of their professional societies’ conferences, and as reviewers
for journal submissions.
Our Director of Space Planning and Facilities, Scott McNally, develops facilities plans for approval by our
executive faculty committee, which includes our Chair, Associate Chair, and Vice Chairs. Our core facilities
include Soda Hall (72,000 ASF) and Cory Hall (132,000ASF). Working with Campus Facilities Services, our
internal space management team, which comprises the Director, two Building Coordinators, a Building
Specialist, and a Department Electrician, renovates, maintains, and improves the infrastructure of these
facilities.
We have been successful in funding many capital improvements, including our New Mixed Signal and
Systems Laboratory, as well as the Vodafone Instructional Lab. The Mixed Signal Systems Laboratory is a
3200ASF modern lab facility for instruction, has 64 workstations including TA area, break out discussion
areas, and modern A-V systems. This facility was made possible by the donation of $900,000 by National
Semiconductor Corporation. The instructional Wireless Lab is a 500ASF facility used by EE 117 that was
made possible by a generous equipment donation by Vodafone. In addition, for both instruction and research
we received $1.2M for the Eugene and Joan C. Wong Center for Communications Research. This 4000ASF
Foundation provides 5 faculty offices, 28 graduate desks, and a department conference room for student office
hours. Donations from industry and our own faculty made possible improvements to our graduate and
undergraduate student lounges located in 325 Cory Hall and the Moore Room in Cory Hall, respectively.
These new rooms continue to keep our student societies with the facilities needed to successfully interact.
EECS also maintains seven data centers (5566 ASF) to support computational needs for research and
instruction. Improvements in these data centers insure 24/7 operation. The addition of emergency back-up
systems for power/air conditioning and the installation of sensors for automatic shutdown or help calls to
system administrators insure continuous computer resources for our students.
The future holds promise for further capital improvements with a pending donation of 1.5M from National
Instruments to create a new instructional lab and seminar room on the second floor of Cory Hall. These will
complement the recent improvements to our Graduate and Undergraduate Student Affairs Offices located on
the second floor.
We are currently engaged in an ambitious plan to raise more than $350 million for a new multi-disciplinary
research center for the development of an information technology infrastructure to address public-sector
needs. Promising undergraduates interested in research will find many opportunities to work with both
professors and graduate students in the Center on projects pertaining to energy efficiency, transportation,
health care, and the like. Our experience has been that we would rather raise our own funds to do what needs
to be done than to wait for campus priorities to include our projects.
Our campus calls annually for minor capital improvement project proposals (up to $250,000) and we have
been successful in obtaining funding for a few of our facilities improvement projects in this manner. We also
make extensive use of our unrestricted donation funds to provide other essential building renovation.
We also participate in an annual “call for equipment replacement” funding from campus. This provides an
average of $120,000 per year in funding for our instructional labs. Since this is nowhere near adequate, we
also participate in equipment donation programs with companies such as Intel, Hewlett-Packard, Motorola,
and others. Fortunately, we average between $2 and $3 million annually in equipment donations.
B.8 Program Criteria
The criteria described in Section 8 for Electrical Engineering and the use of the word “Computer” in the
program title are met by the program of study and the faculty as follows. The Math 1A, 53, and 54
requirement covers differential and integral calculus, differential equations, linear algebra as well as polar
coordinates. The required course EE 20N includes both discrete and continuous events as well as the
mathematics for treating them in terms of arithmetic operations on tuples of numbers, operations on sets,
complex numbers, and discrete and continuous Fourier transforms. Students in Program III (and IV) are
required to take additional discrete mathematics and statistics in either Math 55 or CS 70 or EE 126. Many
students select an additional course or two in mathematics and statistics to satisfy their technical electives,
including concepts of probability, concepts of statistics, real analysis, linear algebra, abstract algebra,
mathematical logic, and complex variables.
43
The engineering sciences requirement is met essentially by having every student take CS 150, Components
and Design Techniques for Digital Systems, as well as the 5 lower-division core courses: EE 20N, EE 40, CS
61A, 61B, and 61C. Electrical and electronic devices are covered in EE 40 and CS 150 and in both classes
students work hands on to analyze and design systems. Software is covered in CS 61A and CS 61B. Systems
containing hardware and software are considered in CS 61C and designed in CS 150. In addition to these
basic core courses, students are required to take an additional 15 units (20 less the 5 for CS 150) of upperdivision EECS classes that involve analysis techniques, tools, and design methodologies for modern
applications of Electrical and Computer Engineering.
Courses for programs in Electrical and Computer Engineering and for Computer Science and Engineering that
meet the program criteria are summarized in the following table, including the CSE criteria for ‘software.’
Program Requirements
Courses That Meet ECE and CSE Program
Criteria
“Knowledge of probability and statistics, including
applications appropriate to the program name and
objectives.”
Elective of: Stat 25, Stat 134, or EECS 126
“Knowledge of mathematics through differential and
integral calculus, basic sciences, computer science, and
engineering sciences necessary to analyze and design
complex electrical and electronic devices, software, and
systems containing hardware and software components,
as appropriate to program objectives.”
Core course sequence: EE 20, EE 40, CS 61
A,B,C
A design class from: EE 128, 130, 140, 141,
143, C145L, C145M, 192; CS 150, 152, 160,
164, 169, 184, 186. Other courses with design
content are: EE 120, 122, 123, 129, 130, 142;
CS 170, 174, 188.
A total of 20 upper-division units in EECS,
many of which are from UD-CC EE 105, EE
120, CS 150, CS 162, CS 170, and the rest from
UD-TA.
“Knowledge of advanced mathematics, typically
including differential equations, linear algebra, complex
variables, and discrete mathematics.”
Math 1A,B + Math 53 + Math 54
For CSE:
Math 55, CS 70, or EE 126
“Ability to appropriately apply discrete mathematics.”
Table 7. Courses meeting ECE and CSE Program criteria.
The EECS faculty is extremely well qualified for teaching engineering science and design in electrical and
computer engineering and for teaching software in Computer Science and Engineering. All faculty members,
except one lower-division CS Lecturer, have Ph.D. degrees. Every faculty member is engaged in guiding
graduate student research and thereby involved in applying and even developing the concepts, analysis, and
design approaches that help the field of electrical and computer engineering evolve. Almost every faculty
member is also able to contribute from their experiences with industry, government, and professional
societies.
B.9 Cooperative Education Criteria
Accreditation is not being sought for a cooperative work element of our program.
B.10 General Advanced-Level Program
Accreditation of an Advanced-Level Program is not being sought.
44