.
1
Self-Study Report for
Electrical Engineering
School of Engineering
Stanford University
June 28, 2006
CONTENTS
2
Contents
A. Background Information
1.
Degree Titles . . . . . . . .
2.
Program Modes . . . . . . .
3.
Actions to Correct Previous
4.
Contact Information . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
Shortcomings
. . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
B. Accreditation Summary
1.
Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(a)
Transfer students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(b)
Procedures used to validate credit for courses taken elsewhere . . . . . . . .
2.
Program Educational Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(a)
Mission Statements and Educational Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(b)
Evolution of the Mission and Program Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(c)
Processes for program evaluation and development . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(d)
System for Ongoing Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.
Program Outcomes and Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(a)
Program Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(b)
Program Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(c)
Assessment Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(d)
2004–2006 Assessment Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(e)
2002–2006 Program Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(f)
Material on program outcomes and assessments available for ABET review
4.
Professional Component . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(a)
Honors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(b)
Minor in Electrical Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.
Faculty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.
Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(a)
Instructional Laboratories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(b)
Instructional Computing Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.
Institutional Support and Financial Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(a)
Budget process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(b)
Institutional support and financial resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(c)
Faculty professional development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.
Teaching Assistants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.
Facilities and Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10. Support Personnel and Institutional Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11. Program Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(a)
Breadth and depth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(b)
Probability and statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(c)
Differential and integral calculus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(d)
Basic sciences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(e)
Advanced mathematics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(f)
Complex variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12. Cooperative Education Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13. General Advanced-Level Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
3
3
3
3
3
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3
3
5
5
6
6
8
10
16
17
17
19
21
22
42
42
42
45
46
47
49
49
50
51
51
51
51
52
52
52
53
53
53
53
54
54
54
54
54
A.
A.
1.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
3
Background Information
Degree Titles
Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering
There is also a Minor in Electrical Engineering, but unless this is specifically indicated all
comments in this report refer to the primary degree title above.
2.
Program Modes
The program is offered as a full-time day program only. In addition to the basic BSEE program,
there is also an Honors program described later (which includes a formal thesis) and a co-terminal
program which leads simultaneously to a BS and MS in EE. The BS portion of the co-terminal
program is identical to the ordinary BS program except for added flexibility in timing course
completion.
3.
Actions to Correct Previous Shortcomings
No shortcomings were cited in the 2002 revisit. Shortcomings cited in the 2000 visit were responded
to prior to the 2002 visit.
4.
Contact Information
Professor Bruce Wooley
Chair, Electrical Engineering
Robert L. and Audrey S. Hancock Professor in the School of Engineering
CIS 206
Stanford, CA 94305-4070
(650) 725-3710
Fax: (650) 725-3383
B.
1.
Accreditation Summary
Students
All students are advised and monitored in a manner consistent with program objectives and ABET
Criterion 1. Arriving freshman are assigned a freshman adviser by the university according to their
preliminary academic interests. Under ordinary circumstances the freshman adviser will advise the
student until the student declares a major, typically during the sophomore year. The University
requires declaration prior to commencing the junior year (prior to completion of 90 quarter units)
and places a hold on registration if the student has not complied. Declaring a major includes an
interview with the EE Department Vice Chair, where the program and available resources (described below) are described and the student is assigned an EE undergraduate faculty adviser. The
documentation containing the current program guidelines is described, as are the student services
of the department, especially the undergraduate advising teaching assistant and the Director of
Student Services/Academic Program Manager. The declaration process is described on the Web
at http://ee.stanford.edu/ee/declare.html, where the basic procedures, program guidelines, and
resources described in the interview are repeated along with other information including transfer
B.
ACCREDITATION SUMMARY
4
credit procedures. To complete the declaration process the student must first fill out a Web declaration form on the Axess, the Stanford software system, complete the interview with the Vice Chair,
and then submit an information sheet with the Vice Chair’s indication of the faculty adviser along
with the student’s University undergraduate academic folder to a student services specialist in the
EE Office. The student services specialist than goes online to validate the student’s declaration
with the University Registrar and formally enter the name of the faculty adviser.
Following the declaration, the Vice Chair and the Director of Student Services monitor student
progress through reports from the University and individual discussions as needed. All students
not making satisfactory progress are identified by the University and contacted by the Department.
Nonsubmission of forms such as adviser-approved program sheets by the required time are followed
up by individual contacts and reminders from a Student Services Specialist. Specific problems such
as unsatisfactory progress are brought to the attention of the faculty advisers and the students
are urged to discuss their status with both faculty and student advisers. On those occasions
when students have difficulty contacting their faculty advisers or obtaining needed advice, they are
encouraged to discuss their situation with either the Director of Student Services, the Department
Vice Chair, the EE Undergraduate Program Representative (currently Professor Simon Wong) who
acts as an “adviser-at-large,” or the undergraduate advising TA.
The program requirements along with related information and advice are spelled out both in
the Stanford University Bulletin (the course catalog of the entire University) and in the Stanford
University School of Engineering Undergraduate Handbook. The full Bulletin is revised annually
and is available on the Web (see table below).
The EE portion of the Stanford Bulletin is kept up to date with all changes and it is available
along with other departmental information on scheduling, staffing, ABET course information sheets,
and complete course information from the “useful links” link in the main EE Web page.
The School of Engineering Undergraduate Handbook is also revised annually and is available on
the Web. The Undergraduate link in the main Web page of the EE Department provides links to
the EE portion of the Handbook as well as a variety of other information, including a description
of the declaration process, the undergraduate Honors program, the Research Experience for Undergraduate (REU) summer departmental research internships, and the University Undergraduate
Advising Center.
Description
Full Bulletin
EE Department
Engineering Undergraduate Handbook
Undergraduate Honors Program
REU Departmental Internships
Undergraduate Advising Center
URL
http://www.stanford.edu/dept/registrar/bulletin/
http://ee.stanford.edu
http://ughb.stanford.edu
http://ee.stanford.edu/Honors Prog/hon prog.html
http://ee.stanford.edu/REU/reu.html
http://uac-server.stanford.edu
The Vice Chair of the Department manages the EE Department Web pages, including the
program documentation, with the assistance of the Computer Systems and Networks Manager
(Pat Burke), the Chair of the EE Computer Committee (Professor John Gill), and occasionally
staff and students.
The Department funds an undergraduate advising teaching assistant, who holds regular office
hours which are advertised on the Web, by pamphlet, and in EE undergraduate core courses and
seminars. The TA is also the undergraduate student advocate on the Academic Affairs Committee
(AAC), the committee of faculty, staff, and students that defines the program and curriculum and
recommends academic policy to the Department Executive Committee (ExCom).
B.
ACCREDITATION SUMMARY
5
When a student applies to graduate, the approved program sheet on file with the department
is matched with the university transcript to ensure that the necessary courses have been taken
with the required grade point average. If not, the graduation is not approved. Students are
reminded at the beginning of the senior year to modify their program sheet if necessary to reflect
any changes made during a prior submission and new program sheets must satisfy the department
guidelines or be specifically approved as an exception by the adviser and the Vice Chair. Typical
exceptions include a custom designed specialty sequence not on the preapproved list and finding
the best program when the requirements change in terms of matching one or the other sets of
requirements. The EE Department approves only the EE portion of the program. Departures from
the requirements for Math and Science and for Engineering Fundamentals must be approved by the
School of Engineering, and departures from the General Education Requirements must be approved
by the University Registrar.
(a)
Transfer students
All transfer students to Stanford University are admitted through the University Admissions Department. Neither the School of Engineering nor the Department of Electrical Engineering are involved in the process, which follows the usual rigorous University admissions policies. The evidence
that the processes and procedures are working is the success of transfer students at completing the
requirements for an EE degree. There is no statistical or anecdotal evidence that transfer students
have a more difficult time completing the EE program.
(b)
Procedures used to validate credit for courses taken elsewhere
Transfer students from other institutions have all transfer credit evaluated on an individual basis.
The EE Department is responsible only for its own classes and decisions are made by the faculty
who teach similar classes or by the Department Vice Chair based on a synopsis, copies of homework
and exams, and examples of work of the requesting student. Non-EE classes must be approved
by the Senior Associate Dean of Engineering for Student Affairs. Final approval is made by the
University Registrar.
The following procedures for transfer credit validation are quoted from the Stanford University
School of Engineering Undergraduate Handbook.
All units of transfer credit that are to be applied toward the University graduation requirement of 180 units must be approved by the Registrar’s Office. Students must petition for their
approval subject to the provisions outlined under “Transfer Credit” in the Stanford Bulletin. In
addition, transfer courses may also satisfy general University requirements or School of Engineering
requirements. Such credits require specific, case-by-case approval.
Those credits which meet general University requirements will be so noted in a letter from
the Registrar’s Office to the student when the units are transferred to Stanford. The School
of Engineering must approve credits meeting engineering requirements prior to the final quarter.
University approval is necessary, but not sufficient. Transfer credit(s) in the areas of:
• Math, Science, Technology in Society and Fundamentals courses require approval by the
Senior Associate Dean for Student Affairs.
• Depth coursework requires approval by the Major or Departmental Advisor.
To evaluate transfer credit(s) in the above areas, the student’s Advisor or the Dean’s Office must be
supplied with a completed “Transfer Credit Request” form (found on the Web at ughb.stanford.edu),
B.
ACCREDITATION SUMMARY
6
a transcript and a catalog description of the course from the other institution, and an indication of
which Stanford course(s) are considered equivalent. If the equivalence is uncertain, a faculty member from the field in question may be consulted. Approval of transfer credits is indicated by the
appropriate initials and date on the student’s original Program Sheet under the Approval column.
The course should be listed first by its equivalent Stanford course number, followed by its title,
followed by the course number at the other school, followed by a check mark in the Transfer column.
An official copy of the transcript for all transferred courses must be included in a student’s file.
Students who do not have a copy of their transcript from other institutions in their academic file
must go to the Transfer Credit Evaluation Office and request that a copy be forwarded to Bertha
Love, Office of Student Affairs.
All engineering transfer students are advised to see the Senior Associate Dean for Student Affairs
during their first year at Stanford for evaluation of transfer credits toward School of Engineering
requirements.
While the Senior Associate Dean and the student’s Major Advisor evaluate transfer credit
requests on a case-by-case basis, the following guidelines are offered:
• Transfer courses should be substantially equivalent to those offered at Stanford.
• The number of units transferred for a given course is usually equal to the number of units
taken at the other institution, adjusted for different unit values at the two schools. That is,
for example, a 3 semester-unit course at another school will usually transfer as 4 1/2 units in
Stanford’s quarter system.
A maximum of 90 transfer units can count towards a Stanford BS in EE.
The evidence that the processes and procedures work is the lack of any evidence to the contrary. Professors have been satisfied with the documentation for approving the transfer credit or
they have not approved the courses. No complaints from lack of approval have been received by
the department and the professors of courses with prerequisites filled by transferred units have
not reported any problems with the students. Furthermore, all transfer credits approved by the
department have also been approved by the school and the registrar, and in no case that we know
of has a student appealed a negative decision by the department for transfer credit.
2.
(a)
Program Educational Objectives
Mission Statements and Educational Objectives
Mission Statement: Stanford University
Stanford University does not maintain a formal mission statement. As one of the leading
universities in the nation our goal is to maintain the highest levels of excellence in all of our
endeavors, but most especially in education, scholarship, and research. In the words of our former
President, Gerhard Casper, we are engaged in “the unceasing quest to know.”
From its beginning, the university has sought to provide an institution where, in the words of our
founding grant, young men and women could “grapple successfully with the practicalities of life.”
Balancing his desire to provide a “practical education,” Leland Stanford strongly maintained that
a broad, liberal education was necessary; in the founding grant he wrote “I attach great importance
to general literature for the enlargement of the mind and for giving business capacity.” To this day,
Stanford strives to maintain this balance in all of our programs of undergraduate education.
B.
ACCREDITATION SUMMARY
7
Mission Statement: School of Engineering
The School of Engineering strives to provide, within the context of the broad, liberal arts
education that is the hallmark of all Stanford Undergraduate programs, the scientific and technical
education necessary for both a satisfying and productive engineering career and for a successful
graduate school experience. The curricula of the School emphasize fundamental knowledge, tools
and skills, while allowing many opportunities for engineering students to take advantage of the
excellent courses and programs offered by the other schools of the University.
Mission Statement: Department of Electrical Engineering
The mission of the Department of Electrical Engineering is to offer an EE undergraduate program that augments the liberal education expected of all Stanford undergraduates and imparts a
basic understanding of electrical engineering built on a foundation of physical science, mathematics,
computing, and technology.
Graduates of the undergraduate program are expected to possess knowledge of the fundamentals
of electrical engineering and of at least one specialty area. The graduates are expected to have the
basic experimental, design, and communication skills to be prepared for continued study at the
graduate level or for entry level positions that require a basic knowledge of electrical engineering,
science, and technology.
B.
ACCREDITATION SUMMARY
8
Educational Objectives of the Department of Electrical Engineering
1. Technical Knowledge
Provide a basic knowledge of electrical engineering principles along with the required supporting knowledge of mathematics, science, computing, and engineering fundamentals. The
program must include depth in at least one specialty area, currently including Computer
Hardware, Computer Software, Controls, Circuits and Devices, Fields and Waves, Communication and Signal Processing, and Solid State and Photonic Devices.
2. Laboratory and Design Skills
Develop the basic skills needed to perform and design experimental projects. Develop the
ability to formulate problems and projects and to plan a process for solution taking advantage
of diverse technical knowledge and skills.
3. Communications Skills
Develop the ability to organize and present information and to write and speak effective
English.
4. Preparation for Further Study
Provide sufficient breadth and depth for successful subsequent graduate study, post-graduate
study, or lifelong learning programs.
5. Preparation for the Profession
Provide an appreciation for the broad spectrum of issues arising in professional practice,
including teamwork, leadership, safety, ethics, service, economics, and professional organizations.
(b)
Evolution of the Mission and Program Objectives
Prior to 1999, the educational mission and objectives of the EE Department were implicit in the
continuous development of the curriculum and the degree and program requirements, which was
and is the responsibility of the EE Department Academic Affairs Committee (AAC) subject to
the approval of the EE Department Executive Committee. The AAC meets monthly through the
academic year and consists of
• faculty representatives from each of the five Laboratories constituting the EE Department: the
Computer Systems Lab (CSL), the Information Systems Lab (ISL), the Integrated Circuits
Lab (ICL), the Solid State and Photonics Lab (SSPL), and the Space, Telecommunications,
and Radio Science Lab (STARLab), each lab traditionally having responsibility for courses
lying within the interest areas of the faculty members of the lab,
• two student members: the undergraduate advising Teaching Assistant and the graduate advising teaching assistant,
• the Educational Laboratory Manager (who attends when the labs are an agenda item),
B.
ACCREDITATION SUMMARY
9
• the Director of Student Services/Academic Program Manager and a Student Services Specialist responsible for monitoring student progress and compliance with program guidelines,
and
• the Vice Chair of the Department, whose primary responsibility is to chair the committee.
The faculty members of the committee seek consensus among their colleagues in their Labs
through individual discussion and formal Lab faculty meetings for all policy, programmatic, and
curricular issues. The student members seek feedback from the undergraduate and graduate students through their advising duties (which supplement ordinary faculty advising) and through
participation in seminars and student activities. Input is also sought through a voluntary annual
Web survey of undergraduate students and a biannual survey of three alumni classes (3, 6, and 9
years out), the results of which are reported to the faculty, to the AAC, and to the ExCom.
All important policy decisions must also be approved by the Department Executive Committee,
consisting of the Chair, the Vice Chair, the Associate Chair for Admissions, the Assistant Chair,
and the Directors of the five Laboratories. Further discussion of important issues is instigated by
email from the Department to the faculty, students, and staff and feedback generated thereby is
incorporated into the formal committee discussions.
The formulation of explicit education objectives was initiated by this mechanism during fall
1999. Following initial discussions among the AAC and the EE ExCom, a draft document containing
a departmental mission statement, educational objectives, and proposed assessment procedures was
posted on the Web. First the two committees were invited to comment on the document and to
provide suggestions to the Vice Chair, who serves as Editor. Following several revisions and further
discussion at committee meetings, an email note was sent to all EE faculty, staff, and student lists
seeking comments and suggestions. All comments received were taken into consideration in the
document revisions. The educational objectives were included in our constituency surveys described
later (alumni, current students, graduating seniors, employers) with a call for comments as well as
a request for importance ranking. The constituencies of the EE Department are
• Stanford undergraduate EE students (including coterminal M.S. students)
• EE Faculty
• Employers of EE graduates
• EE Alumni
Since the formal mission statement and educational objectives were essentially a distillation of of
the guiding principals behind years of practice by the EE Academic Affairs Committee, they already
formed an integral part in the philosophy and actions of curricular and program development for
the EE Department.
The Mission Statement and Educational Objectives are posted at our departmental Web site on
the About EE page and they are described in department, school, and university documentation.
Since their establishement, the mission statement and educational objectives are revisited each
year by the AAC in its annual update of the Stanford Bulletin and School of Engineering Academic
Handbook, both of which are posted to the Web for faculty, staff, and student comment with
email announcements requesting inspection and comment being sent to all faculty, students, and
staff. The mission statement and educational objectives are also a specific part of the annual
undergraduate student and biannual alumni surveys.
B.
ACCREDITATION SUMMARY
10
Future revisions will be accomplished in the same manner. In particular, educational objectives
along with goals and outcomes are revisited each year by the AAC and any significant changes are
promulgated electronically and by department, school, and university documentation.
(c)
Processes for program evaluation and development
The primary means of achieving the educational goals is the academic curriculum and supporting
programs. The most important aspects of the curriculum and related supporting programs for each
educational objective are summarized below:
Educational Objectives
Technical Knowledge
Laboratory and Design Skills
Communications Skills
Preparation for Further Study
Preparation for the Profession
Contributors to Educational Objectives
required math and physics courses
EE core courses
EE specialty sequence
EE electives
Lab components of core courses on Circuits (102A,B)
and Digital Systems (108A,B)
design classes
EE electives
University requirement in writing & rhetoric
Writing in the major (ENGR 102E/EE 108A)
design classes
Research Experience for Undergraduates (REU) presentations
honors theses
general education courses
EE core, specialty, and electives
Seminars, especially EE 100
REU
design classes
student IEEE Section
special student activities, e.g., Stanford Electric Car Project
The curriculum is continually reviewed, evaluated, and revised by the EE Academic Affairs
committee (AAC) comprised of faculty, student, and staff representation and chaired by the Department Vice Chair by the process described at the beginning of this section. The AAC meets
monthly and also does business by email and regularly considers feedback from faculty and students
regarding program requirements, class content, prerequisites, and suitability for the undergraduate
program. The feedback is provided by the faculty and student representatives who serve on the
committee and who are responsible for gathering such feedback from their peer groups. Further
inputs are obtained independently from undergraduate student lunches with faculty and staff participation, from various special interest seminars and events for specific interest groups within the
Department, and from surveys of our students and alumni.
The Department holds annual undergraduate student lunches hosted by the Chair or Vice Chair
along with the Director of Student Services, the undergraduate advising TA, and other Department
faculty and staff as an opportunity to chat informally about the program and garner feedback.
These lunches have led to several intense discussions of aspects of the University and Departmental
Program and have often had a significant impact on both EE Department and School of Engineering
Requirements. In 2005, the meeting led to an evaluation of the workload in the digital systems
B.
ACCREDITATION SUMMARY
11
core courses and confirmed an adjustment of the homework and project requirements already being
done. It also led to a proposal of merging the Matlab component into the systems and linear
systems core homework rather than treating it as a separate lab.
The Department conducts annual Web surveys of declared undergraduates, which provides
feedback on general issues such as program objectives along with specific feedback including student
opinion on curricular changes. This has been particularly important for reducing the requirements
for specific courses while increasing flexibility in undergraduate program planning while still meeting
all ABET requirements.
At irregular intervals (roughly every six years) the Department forms a Strategic Planning
Committee to evaluate the state and direction of all aspects of the Department, including the
undergraduate program, and to make recommendations to the Chair. The most recently completed
strategic plan was in 2000 and is included in the Appendix. A new strategic planning committee
convened in 2005-2006, with the report due later in 2006. In the December 2000 report, a key part,
excerpted below, related to the undergraduate program.
Our undergraduate enrollment is the smallest among top-ranked electrical engineering
departments. However, our students are outstanding and are highly sought after by
industry and the best graduate schools. Unlike most universities, where freshmen must
declare a major at the time of their admission, Stanford undergraduates are encouraged
to explore a variety of interests before choosing a major; the choice that may be made as
late as the end of the sophomore year. Thus, we must compete with other departments
to attract a group of highly talented students. Our current undergraduate curriculum
was largely established in the 1980s, when incoming freshmen interested in science or
engineering often already had a reasonable appreciation of electrical engineering, specifically, electronics. Generally, incoming students now have very different backgrounds
and interests, and even those who are interested in engineering may not have much
appreciation of our activities, especially when compared with Computer Science. Our
undergraduate program needs to be revamped to address the changing interests and
backgrounds of students, the evolution of our fields of activity, and the shift in career
opportunities.
This advice was followed with the establishment of an Undergraduate Curriculum Committee.
At irregular intervals, a special department Undergraduate Curriculum Committee is formed of
faculty actively engaged in undergraduate teaching and undergraduate and coterminal students.
The committee is charged with evaluating the undergraduate degree requirements in general and
the core (required) curriculum in particular, including the possibility of major revisions in course
content and structure. The current committee was established by EE Chair Bruce Wooley in 2000
first under the leadership of Professor Simon Wong and then under Professor Mark Horowitz. The
committee made recommendations for a radical restructuring of the EE core with the goals of
reducing the time required for a student to pursue more advanced courses, of better integrating
labs with lectures, and better distributing and clarifying the topics among the courses. As recommendations were developed they were evaluated and feedback was provided by both the AAC and
the ExCom with the eventual result of the old core courses EE 101, 102, 103, 111, 112, 113, and
121 being replaced by EE 101A,B, EE 102A,B, and EE 108A,B. The report was first circulated
among the faculty and posted on the Web for comment in 2001 and the fourth revision (summer
2004) of the Undergraduate Committee Report with detailed proposed syllabii and discussion of
the philosophy and reasons behind the recommendations may be found as a link in the About EE
link to the main EE Web page.
B.
ACCREDITATION SUMMARY
12
The committee continued to meet under the leadership of Professor Andrea Goldsmith, a member of the AAC, to consider further modifications and improvements. The committee dissolved at
the end of the 2005-2006 academic year and the AAC is now charged with following through on
the Undergraduate Committee recommendations for further improvements to the new core, which
as of summer 2006 completed its third full year.
Both the 2004 report and the 2006 draft report are included as appendices to this document, but
we here excerpt portions from the 2004 report to describe the new core and the reasons behind it as
the operation of the Undergraduate Committee and the results of its efforts form a key component
of our processes and results.
The following excerpt from the Background Section of the report well describes the general
goals of the revamped core:
As described in the most recent strategic plan of the Electrical Engineering Department,
the field of Electrical Engineering has continued to evolve and expand, further blurring
its boundaries with other disciplines. In particular the overlap with CS continues to
grow and joint undergraduate programs at the border with CS are essential. The ability
to create joint programs with other departments is strongly desired, with areas like
bioelectronics worthy of serious consideration in the near future (although it was not
considered in this report).
In addition to becoming broader, Electrical Engineering has been strongly influenced
by the rapid growth in information processing. Information technology has served
both as a dominant consumer electronic technology, and provided the tools that drive
further innovations. As a consequence, the complexity of the systems that our students
deal with has grown exponentially. Our curriculum must provide them with not only
the insights to understand the underlying technologies and theories associated with
each level of complexity, but also the knowledge and skills to choose the appropriate
abstraction level for each component, making the complexity work for them rather than
against them.
The rapid growth of information technology has also changed the background, training,
and interests of our students. Gone are the days when prospective Electrical Engineering
students built or disassembled electronic systems (with radio / audio amplifiers being the
most common) before they entered universities. Today’s students have more exposure
and background in software than hardware. They have direct experience manipulating
“codes” but not “devices”, feel more at home in the virtual world of the computer, rather
than the physical world. Students are also used to dealing in a world with abundant
information, and many distractions, and they feel more comfortable in situations where
the application for the information being taught is clear. Our current curriculum lays
out the fundamentals first before getting to applications and is a “poor impedance
match” to our students.
In addition to delaying gratification, the sequence structure of the current curriculum
causes additional problems for our students. The core is too long, and too linear, making
it difficult for students to create a schedule that allows them to take many classes in
their depth area. Some depth areas are hard to complete if you decide on an EE major
belatedly. Some students take the EE 111-113 sequence concurrently with EE 101-103,
to avoid some of these problems, which causes a different set of challenges for them. In
addition this structure does not encourage a student to “sample” different areas since
a student needs to take many classes before reaching the essence or excitement of the
B.
ACCREDITATION SUMMARY
13
area. If we want to foster work at the border of different areas, we need to create classes
that build excitement in the first class of a series.
In summary, we need to change our undergraduate curriculum to
• motivate students to “sample” different areas,
• emphasize how fundamental principles cut across different core areas,
• include motivating examples for all the material in the core,
• take advantage of the students’ familiarity with “virtual” environments,
• arouse the students’ interest and curiosity in “hardware,”
• blur the boundary between “software” and “hardware,”
• broaden the students’ appreciation of system issues, and
• familiarize students with different levels of system abstraction.
Unfortunately we need to implement these changes in a constrained environment. Stanford prides itself on being a liberal-arts university. Our undergraduates are not required
to declare a major at the time of their admission, and have a number of distribution
requirements during their first two years. They are encouraged to explore and develop
a variety of interests before choosing a major. This both forces us to compete with
other departments for the best students, and limits the amount of classes that we can
include in our program. We are faced with a small number of classes we can require
all students to take. To make room for classes that help with abstractions and dealing
with complex systems, some material needs to be dropped from the current core. This
is a difficult question, since all areas have strong proponents.
Our proposal keeps the core small, and uses it to introduce areas that are not covered
in depth. Our present curriculum was created when solid-state electronics was the key
area in EE, and so the curriculum is centered on microelectronics devices and circuit
design. While this remains a key area, it no longer holds the dominant position it once
did. Thus we are reducing the number of courses in the solid-state electronics area and
broadening the remaining classes.
The detail of the new core courses are provided in the reports, and these have been modified
by discussion in the AAC, the ExCom, and by experience with teaching the core and feedback
from instructors of subsequent courses. the final detailed descriptions, objectives, and topics can
be found in the course information sheets (and remotely from the ABET layout in the EE Courses
database at http://ee-bulletin.stanford.edu. Several specific changes include the following.
The introductory electronics course, ENGR 40, was dropped as a requirement. It is still recommended and heavily subscribed by non-EE majors, but removing it as a requirement allows those
who wish to move straight into the core and adds flexibility to program planning.
The core requirement for a course concentrating on electromagnetics (EE 141) has been replaced
by a choice between pure EM and a broader course on physics in electrical engineering (EE 41)
which includes EM along with other topics such as electrostatics and quantum mechanics and how
these subjects relate both to the EE curriculum and to everyday life devices including DVDs, TVs,
light bulbs, and laser pointers.
Students are now able to complete many of the basic math requirements by taking courses
from the Institute for Computational and Mathematical Engineering (CME) within the School of
B.
ACCREDITATION SUMMARY
14
Engineering. These courses cover the same material, including multivariable calculus, differential
equations, and linear algebra as the traditional math courses, but they emphasize engineering
problems and treat numerical methods in more depth.
In response to the Undergraduate Committee, the EE department developed and actively promoted several new freshman seminars as a means of introducing freshmen to EE before they have
had all the basic physics and math necessary to tackle core courses. These courses have been quite
popular (they are filled by application and all have been full) and they provide a means of recruiting
new EE majors as well as doing outreach to those who will not pursue an engineering major. The
courses introduced during the previous two years are
EE 010N How Musical Instruments Work
EE 012N How Cyberspace Works
EE 014N Things About Stuff
EE 015N The Life of an Engineering Project
EE 016N From Science Fiction to Science and Engineering
EE 017N Engineering the Micro and Nano Worlds: From Chips to Genes
Feedback from students in terms of both surveys and oral comments has been uniformly positive. The Department encourages faculty to teach these courses and many faculty have expressed
interest in doing one of these course on an alternate year basis. Five freshman seminars by EE
faculty will be offered in 2006–2007. These will be
EE 010N How Musical Instruments Work
EE 018N Pi and Other Physical Constants in Math, Physics, and Engineering
EE 019N How the Internet Works
EE 020N Hacking Stuff
EE 021N What is Nanotechnology
During the 2004–2005 academic year the committee evaluated the new core based on its first
year 2003–2004 and made several recommendations for modification. During the year new courses
were added to restore some topics that were needed to strengthen specialty sequences in the context
of the new core. These included EE 109 (Digital Systems Design Laboratory), 114X (Simulationbased Circuit Design), and 116 (Semiconductor Device Physics). After many years of discussion, a
new specialty area was introduced in Solid State and Photonic Devices to provide a physics-oriented
EE undergraduate specialty. The committee also prepared formal recommendations for all capstone
design courses, courses meeting the ABET requirements for “a major design experience.”
Recommendations approved by the AAC in 2005–2006 and to be implemented in 2006–2007 are
• Eliminate the requirement for Physics 45 (Light and Heat)
• Eliminate the requirement for the EE 122 (Analog Lab). Students will still get analog lab
experience in EE 101A,B.
• Incorporation of Matlab experiments into the course and homework for EE 102A,B rather
than treating them as a Laboratory.
The primary focus of the AAC is an annual review of the curriculum while staffing and planning
the course schedule for the subsequent year. This process begins in the late fall quarter at which
time each Lab proposes staffing for the courses traditionally handled by that Lab. Based on Lab
faculty meetings and discussions, the Lab representative can propose elimination, modification, or
addition of courses and changes in the program requirements.
B.
ACCREDITATION SUMMARY
15
The AAC then evaluates the inputs from all Labs and considers possible eliminations, revisions,
and the addition of new classes to fill perceived gaps. Two guiding principles formally stated in our
Teaching Policy are that generally all fundamental and core courses should be taught by the regular
faculty and that the teaching load should be distributed as fairly as possible among the faculty in
such a way as to ensure coverage of the basic courses. The basic goal of the EE Department is that
professors should generally teach one course per quarter and do their fair share towards teaching
the fundamental undergraduate and graduate courses. Individual professors can also propose new
classes and special consideration is given to basic undergraduate classes in new areas over advanced
graduate classes. Faculty are encouraged to consider two-year teaching cycles to allow them to
teach undergraduate courses at least every other year and to minimize the number of faculty who
teach only graduate classes. This has made it easier to cover key undergraduate courses by regular
faculty when the primary instructor takes a sabbatical or wishes to teach something different for
variety.
The continual adjustment of the program in response to faculty and student inputs shows
that the system is flexible and able to adapt to changing needs. Recent changes include dropping
requirements for specific engineering fundamentals courses that students have often already had and
allowing more flexibility in choosing from a list of approved courses. For example, most entering
students now have computer programming skills to the level taught in CS 106X and hence students
may take a more advanced course in its place. The requirement for the entry level introductory
electronics course ENGR 40 has been dropped as many students know the material and wish to
proceed to more advanced courses. The course is still recommended for EE majors. Many of these
changes are in direct response to a common student perception that the EE program is one of
the most onerous in the University in terms of lack of flexibility and the high number of required
units – a reputation that puts EE at a disadvantage for recruiting undergraduates with respect
to other School of Engineering departments (especially Computer Science). Adding flexibility and
early access to more advanced classes is a top priority. In one case we received feedback from
students and faculty that important topics were not sufficiently covered in the reduced circuits core
for students wishing to pursue the circuits and devices specialty sequence and as a direct result a
new 2-unit lab course EE 114X was created to provide the missing materia.
In addition to the ordinary processes for program and curricular development, there are on
occasion special committees at the departmental level charged to evaluate various aspects of the
overall program (both undergraduate and graduate) and to make recommendations to the Chair for
improvements. These include the Undergraduate Committee already described, strategic planning
committees, and visiting committees, typically formed in a 5–10 year period. The Department
has a five-year strategic plan for development of its resources and faculty hiring, where faculty
priorities depend on both research directions deemed important and teaching needs at the most
fundamental levels. The current report (written in 2000) may be found on the Web at the About
EE link previously mentioned. The Department has Visiting Committees on an irregular basis,
but an effort is made to have a visit once roughly every five years. Visiting Committees are asked
to evaluate both undergraduate and graduate programs as well as research activity and directions
and to formally report their observations and suggestions to the Dean.
Lastly, the University Committee on the Review of Undergraduate Majors (C-RUM) regularly
reviews undergraduate programs. Electrical Engineering was last reviewed in May 2002, just as
the restructuring of the undergraduate EE core was taking place. At that time, the committee
encouraged the department to consider offering more freshman and sophomore seminars to help
attract undergraduates to the major and to possibly engage some of the graduate students to help
mentor the undergraduates. The department has since acted on both of these suggestions.
B.
ACCREDITATION SUMMARY
16
The Senior Associate Dean for Student Affairs, currently Professor Brad Osgood, is responsible
for developing and coordinating the School-wide program requirements. Proposed changes to the
program requirements are considered by the School of Engineering Undergraduate Council. The
EE representative to the Undergraduate Council is currently Professor Simon Wong.
Several programs are intended specifically to enhance the program and ensure achievement of
the stated objectives, including
• annual revision by AAC of degree requirements and curriculum
• program advising by faculty and departmental TA
• surveys in all classes of instructor and teaching assistant performance
• interviews with all undergraduates declaring EE as a major
• monitoring of student performance (by the Director of Student Services, a Student Services
Specialist, and the Department Vice Chair), rapid response to student requests and problems
• the EE Honors program, providing research opportunities and an honors thesis
• the Research Experience for Undergraduates (REU) program, providing a summer intensive, paid research experience for 45 Stanford undergraduates in summers 2004-2006 and 35
students in summers 2001-2003.
• Department support for the IEEE Student Chapter, which organizes a variety of student
events such as student-faculty mixers
• Department support for the Women in Electrical Engineering (WEE) student group, a group
formed following a June 2004 workshop on Mentoring for Engineering Academia which was
supported by the Presidential Award for Excellence in Science, Mathematics, and Engineering
Mentoring (PAESMEM) and the Stanford School of Engineering. (For further information,
see http://paesmem.stanford.edu.)
• Department support for various group projects involving undergraduates, including the Stanford Electric Car Project
• Annual design prizes presented at graduation supported by Hewlett Packard, Agilent, and
California Microwave.
(d)
System for Ongoing Evaluation
The process of evaluating achievement of the educational objectives of the program is based on
the following measurements, which are considered by the Academic Affairs Committee as part
of its ongoing curriculum revision. The AAC reports its findings to the Department Chair and
the Department Executive Committee and it provides feedback to the individual instructors and
Laboratories on specific curricular issues.
Measurements
• statistics of student performance in the classes most relevant to the specific educational objectives and program outcomes
B.
ACCREDITATION SUMMARY
17
• quarterly student evaluations of EE courses: results go to instructors, Chair, and Vice Chair
• faculty feedback on the adequacy of prerequisite preparation for subsequent courses as gathered in Lab faculty meetings and reported to the AAC
• quality of design project reports as measured by course grades and by the EE Department Design Prizes Committee in their annual selection of the six best undergraduate design projects
• periodic surveys of the constituencies, including
– biennial surveys of alumni
– irregular surveys of individual industrial colleagues of the Stanford faculty who recruit
and hire Stanford graduates through Industrial Affiliates meetings and Center Advisory
Board meetings
– annual graduating senior exit surveys
• reports by and discussions with departmental visiting committees
The specific materials to be made available to the ABET Visiting Committee are listed in
Subsection 3.
3.
(a)
Program Outcomes and Assessment
Program Outcomes
The Program Outcomes are listed in the following table along with the related Educational Objective and the primary measurements used for their evaluation. The outcomes are all drawn from
ABET 2000 Criterion 3 with the addition of an outcome relating to background for admission to
engineering and other professional graduate programs.
B.
ACCREDITATION SUMMARY
program outcomes
(a) an ability to apply knowledge of mathematics,
science, and engineering
18
related
educational
objectives
1, 2, 4
measurements
• grade average in math, statistics, and science
courses
• student course evaluations
• grade average in engineering science courses
• alumni surveys
• student surveys
• quarterly undergraduate lunch feedback
• faculty feedback regarding adequacy of prerequisites
(b) an ability to design and conduct experiments, as
well as to analyze and interpret data
1, 2, 4
• grades in courses satisfying experimentation
requirement and design courses
• student course evaluations
• alumni surveys
• student surveys
• quarterly undergraduate lunch feedback
(c) an ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs
1,2,5
• grades in approved design courses
• annual design prizes
• alumni surveys
• student surveys
• quarterly undergraduate lunch feedback
(d) an ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams
5
• grades in approved design courses (most
projects done by teams)
• alumni surveys
• student surveys
• quarterly undergraduate lunch feedback
(e) an ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems
1, 2, 4
• grade in approved design courses
• alumni surveys
• student surveys
• quarterly undergraduate lunch feedback
(f) an understanding of professional and ethical responsibility
5
• grade in Technology in Society Course
• alumni surveys
• student surveys
• quarterly undergraduate lunch feedback
B.
ACCREDITATION SUMMARY
(g) an ability to communicate effectively
19
3
• grade in EE 108A/ENGR 102E
• grades in project courses requiring oral presentation (EE 133, EE 144, EE 168, EE 189B
(CS 194))
• alumni surveys
• student surveys
• quarterly undergraduate lunch feedback
(h) the broad education necessary to understand the
impact of engineering solutions in a global and societal context
1,4, 5
• grade in Technology in Society Course
• grades in Engineering Fundamentals (School
Basic Requirement 3)
• alumni surveys
• grade point average in general education requirements
(i) a recognition of the need for, and an ability to
engage in, life-long learning
1, 2, 3, 4, 5
• alumni surveys
• alumni membership in professional organizations
• student exit surveys
• quarterly undergraduate lunch feedback
(j) a knowledge of contemporary issues
4, 5
• student exit survey
• quarterly undergraduate lunch feedback
• alumni surveys
(k) an ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice
1, 2, 3, 4, 5
• grades in design courses
• placement information
• student surveys
• quarterly undergraduate lunch feedback
(l) background for admission to engineering or other
professional graduate programs
1, 2, 3, 4
• GRE scores
• alumni surveys
• student surveys
• quarterly undergraduate lunch feedback
(b)
Program Assessment
The assessment process is based on the measurements of the program outcomes, which in turn are
linked to the educational objectives. The measurements are primarily quantitative and hence comparable to specific goals as targets, but portions of the measurements are anecdotal and provide a
means for detailed feedback and suggestions from the constituencies. Although such measurements
as grades on exams, projects, and homeworks are considered “direct” measurements and written
comments made in surveys and oral comments made at student/faculty lunches and meetings are
considered “indirect,” the later often provides insightful opinions as to the reasons behind problems
B.
ACCREDITATION SUMMARY
20
indicated by the quantive measurements, specifically addressing issues such as workload, relevance
of homework, too much or too little emphasis on selected topics, and usefulness of material seen in
hindsight.
As part of the program to improve awareness of the program outcomes and their relation to the
curriculum, in the winter quarter of the 2000–2001 academic year we began to develop a complete
EE program Web database of courses in order to provide all information regarding courses and our
academic program of possible interest to our constituencies, including the students, staff, faculty,
the Stanford Center for Professional Development, and other interested parties. The information
for each course includes the course objectives and expected outcomes, along with topics, course
structure, lab components, and other information including the information requested for the ABET
course information sheets. The database was made publically available in the summer prior to the
2001-2002 academic year and has been continuously refined and improved since then. Currently
the public version is available at http://ee-bulletin.stanford.edu. The database includes in one of
the layouts a version of the ABET information sheets. The expected program outputs specific to
each course are provided in the dataentry layout. The Department encourages all instructors to
incorporate most of the twelve program outcomes and the program outcomes for each course are
listed in the Department course information database on the Web.
Each year during the winter program planning process the faculty are asked by the Academic
Affairs Committee and the Vice Chair to update all of the course information, including the objectives and outcomes for the class. At this time almost all undergraduate courses actually taught by
the EE Department have complete and current information on-line.
The letter grades of each course reflects the instructor’s quantification of the success of the
students in achieving the stated outcomes in the particular course based on performance in the
classroom and grades in homework, projects, exams, and oral presentations. Where letter grades
provide measurements, our goal is that students will maintain at least the minimum standard of a
C (2.0) average (the requirement for graduation) and that the majority of students will maintain
at least a B (3.0) average for most technical courses.
The students’ ratings of the success at achieving outcomes and meeting course goals are measured by an annual Web-based survey of all EE majors and a biannual Web-based survey of alumni
from three distinct classes. A summary of recent surveys is presented below. The raw data from
the surveys will be available to EE faculty and for the ABET visiting team in the autumn. These
surveys are studied in full by the Department Chair and Vice Chair and the Academic Affairs Committee (AAC), the committee responsible for the undergraduate and graduate program, and the
Department Executive Committee. Slightly censored versions (removing some specifically named
individuals) are circulated among the faculty and students and posted on the department website.
These surveys, the most recent of which are detailed later, indicate that both current students and
alumni find that most of the outcomes are between ”well met” and ”very well met” most of the
time, but that certain specific outcomes have means falling between well met and only marginally
well met, with a few students feeling that they are not well met. Comments also point to several
problems with the new core curriculum during its first year and second year. These comments have
been important feedback for the continued adjustment of the new core. Where surveys provide the
measurements, all of our surveys ask for ratings of from 1 (very important or very well met) to
4 (not important or not well met) in terms of how important or how well met a desired outcome
was. On this scale we considered an average of 2.5 (midway between “important or well met” and
“marginally important or marginally well met” as the minimum acceptable, and an average of 2
(important or well met) as the target goal. All surveys also asked for a variety of comments, and
students and alumni provided profuse elaborations of their satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the
program. This is inherently anecdotal data, but it was often more informative than the quantitative
B.
ACCREDITATION SUMMARY
21
data.
Where student course evaluations provide the measurements, a standard School of Engineering
form is used rating several aspects of the class. General comments regarding the class are also
requested. The School requires all faculty to perform such surveys. The results are forwarded
to the faculty member, the Department Chair, and the Deans and they play a key role in both
ordinary merit raise considerations and in promotion and tenure considerations. Faculty placing
in the top 25th percentile are sent congratulatory notices. It should be emphasized, however, that
the average score for the overall instructor rating for the Department of Electrical Engineering on
a five point scale from 1 (excellent) to 5 (poor) is typically around 1.9, better than the second best
possible score of 2.
To summarize, outcomes corresponding to every undergraduate course are described by the
instructors along with other course information in the EE Course Database, which is available on
the Web from the main EE Web page and is consulted by students, potential students, faculty, and
staff to find detailed information on all aspects of each course. Success at the listed outcomes in the
instructors’ opinion is indicated by completion of the course with a satisfactory letter grade. Student
opinion is captured through annual surveys and senior lunches and these results are reported to the
program and executive committees of the Department for evaluation and use in program planning.
It should be noted that student feedback regarding the digital systems courses played a role in
the current development of a new digital systems sequence introduced in the 2003–2004 academic
year. Finally, there is a process in effect to ensure that all students meet all program requirements
in terms of the program requirements spelled out in the School of Engineering Undergraduate
Handbook. The EE Student Services office contacts all students who are not making satisfactory
progress or have failed to meet department deadlines for program approval and works with them
to meet the requirements. Students not meeting the requirements do not receive the degree.
(c)
Assessment Schedule
The assessment process can be summarized by the following activities and their schedules:
quarterly Student evaluations of teaching assistants are conducted roughly midquarter. Results
are passed on to the TAs. Those doing well are congratulated by email, those doing generally fine but who have weak spots are advised to focus more on those weak spots indicated
by the survey and to take advantage of the Stanford Center for Teaching and Learning to
improve their skills. Those showing several problems are called in for an interview with the
Academic Affairs Specialist to discuss means of improving their skills. Those who do not
take appropriate measures towards improving serious deficiencies are not rehired as TAs.
Student evaluations of courses and instructors are conducted during the final week of the
course. Results are forwarded to the Department Chair and the Deans for consideration in
salary adjustments and promotion and tenure decisions. Copies of evaluations are a necessary part of all promotion and tenure papers. Results are also available to the Vice Chair for
consideration in course staffing and development.
monthly EE Academic Affairs Committee (AAC) meets to discuss and develop degree requirements, curriculum, and staffing. AAC is also responsible for faculty teaching load policy and
TA staffing policy. The School of Engineering Undergraduate Council meets. It is responsible
for School requirements and policy.
biweekly EE Executive Committee (ExCom) meets. ExCom has final responsibility for approving
all significant policy changes, degree requirements, and support programs approved by AAC.
B.
ACCREDITATION SUMMARY
22
School of Engineering ExCom meets. This ExCom has final responsibility for all changes to
School of Engineering degree requirements, including those requested by EE. Both ExComs
also consider all appointments and promotions, in which the teaching surveys play a significant role. The approval of both ExComs is a necessary condition for all appointments and
promotions.
October AAC has first meeting of academic year. Sets agenda and schedule for the academic
year, reviews results of surveys from previous spring. Prioritizes course reviews.
autumn quarter Consideration of program requirements for undergraduates and graduates, addition and deletion of courses, changes in teaching and TA policies.
winter quarter Lab meetings set initial staffing and curriculum, AAC coordinates course offerings over all Labs, EE portion of Stanford Bulletin information is approved listing degree
requirements, department information, and all classes to be taught in subsequent year along
with staffing and (for the EE Web version) days and times for schedule planning.
As part of faculty feedback preparing the bulletin, the adequacy of lower level classes at
providing necessary prerequisites is discussed and adjustments in both listed prerequisites
and in course content are made as needed.
spring quarter Corrections are made to the Bulletin as necessary.
Every other year alumni surveys are taken of alumni three, six, and nine years out. Every
other year employer surveys are taken using Stanford industrial affiliates programs, Center
advisery boards, and an email list of companies recruiting Stanford EE undergraduates.
Every year Stanford undergraduate students are surveyed.
(d)
2004–2006 Assessment Results
Grades Several of the program requirements involve measurements which are grade point averages
for specific groups of classes. While we have not yet been able to find a workable means of getting
these averages from the registrar, we have succeeded in getting GPAs for the EE portion and
the overall for our graduating seniors. In the future we hope to find a means of tracking specific
averages for each class. For the 65 undergraduates receiving their EE BS in 2004-2005 (latest figures
available), the overall cumulative GPA was 3.45 on a 4.0 scale and the EE-specific GPA was 3.33.
Both averages exceed both our minimum standard and our target goal and imply that averages for
non-EE classes are as strong as for those of the EE classes.
Entering Students One of the measurement scores for Program Outcome (i): background for
admission to engineering or other professional graduate programs is average GRE scores of graduating seniors. At this time we have access only to the scores of our own undergraduate students
who apply for admission to our coterminal MS program. These are summarized in the table below:
Year
# Students
04-05
05-06
22
31
Analy
Paper
5.5
5.2
Analy
Paper %
81
72
Analy
Comp
720
NA
Analy
Comp %
90
NA
Quant
792
800
Quant %
91
87
Verbal
648
629
Verbal %
86
85
Evaluations by Students Student course evaluations and teaching assistant evaluations were
conducted on a quarterly basis as they have been for many years. Generally the TA performance
is rated highly. As described above, all TAs with apparent shortcomings are contacted individually
and counseled. Course evaluations are studied during the summer and used in course development
B.
ACCREDITATION SUMMARY
23
by the AAC beginning in fall, but already some adjustments have been made so as to have faculty
teach to those audiences where they do best wherever possible.
Surveys of Constituencies
In spring 2004, 2005, and 2006 we surveyed our primary constituency, our undergraduate students. The results of our 2002 survey are not reported here both because of their age and because
they were summarized for the 2002 ABET followup visit to the 2000 visit. Surveys were not taken
in 2003 because the Vice Chair was on sabbatical. In summer of 2004 we did our biannual survey
of alumni (this time for 1995, 1998, and 2001). In summer of 2005 we surveyed subscribers to the
ee-jobs-posters@lists.stanford.edu, an email listserver of regular employers of Stanford students.
The student and alumni surveys were conducted using Web forms. For student surveys, an email
request and description of the survey was sent to the student listservers ee-undergrad@stanford.edu
and ee-students@stanford.edu and instructors of all core and specialty courses were asked to remind
the students of the survey. Results are tabulated separately for graduating seniors and some of the
questions are specifically intended as an exit survey. For alumni surveys, the request is sent by the
Stanford Alumni Office on our behalf. The employers survey is conducted entirely by email.
The employer responses by this mechanism are typically sparse, but they are reinforced by other
means including Visiting Committee reports and discussions with industrial partners in various
centers involving the EE Department, including the Center for Integrated Systems and the Stanford
Networking Research Center.
The results are summarized in the following subsections. A summary together with the raw
data is made available to the AAC, the EE ExCom, the Dean of Engineering, the faculty, and
ABET visitors. The summary is publically available.
All of the surveys asked the recipients to rate the degree of satisfaction with the Educational
Objectives and Program Outcomes of the EE Undergraduate Program and to comment on both.
2004 Alumni Survey
A total of 29 alumni from the three classes surveyed responded. Given our undergraduate
program is relatively small, currently approximately 40 BS degrees per year, this represents a
return of approximately 24%. This is not a particularly good response, but it seems to be typical.
When we offered a $100 Amazon gift certificate to a randomly selected winner in an earlier survey,
the response rate increased 10%.
Of the 29, 13 subsequently received an MS degree and one each a PhD, MD, and MBA. The
Schools attended included Stanford, Columbia Business School, The Wharton School, MIT, the
University of Texas School of Law, Harvard Business School, University of Illinois, UC-San Francisco, Purdue, and the Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons – all excellent
schools. First employments included a wide range of positions and responsibilities, including planning engineer, research and development IC engineer, communications engineer, financial apps
engineer, control engineer, circuit designer, hardware and software engineers, military intelligence,
DSP and microprocessor design, logic design, and aircraft test and evaluation. One student created
a startup company. Current positions included a range from PhD student to a variety of positions
such as product engineer, graphic designer, equity research analyst, member of the technical staff,
ASIC logic design, and an Air Force Officer.
Fewer alumni than in past years report regular activity in professional societies, only three
(IEEE and ACM Siggraph). We need to do a better job of getting students to consider such societies
early on. Our required EE Undergraduate Seminar on The Electrical Engineering Profession does
devote half a class to a student IEEE presentation supplemented by a faculty member describing
the benefits of professional society membership.
B.
ACCREDITATION SUMMARY
24
Since our prior ABET report we added a question regarding undergraduate advising. The
alumni rated their advising as
excellent
good
adequate
poor
3.4%
34.9%
31.0%
20.7%
The number of those considering the advising as poor is disturbing given that no complaints
were received by the department and that the only proposed programs that were not approved
involved students who never spoke to a faculty adviser. Nonetheless, this is an issue for constant
attention.
The survey asked respondents to rate their degree of satisfaction of the Educational Objectives
and the Program Outcomes on a scale of 1 (best) through 4 (worst). An option of “no opinion”
was allowed, which did not affect the average score. The following tables summarize the average
scores:
Educational objective
Technical Knowledge
Laboratory and Design Skills
Communication Skills
Preparation for Further Study
Preparation for Profession
Degree met
1.59
1.66
2.00
1.60
2.07
All results were above our minimum standard of 2.5, but the average satisfaction did not uniformly
achieve our goal of 2.0. Program changes have been made since many of the alumni completed the
program, but improvement of these scores and refinement of the survey continuing tasks. The two
results of most concern are the communication skills (2.00 satisfaction) and preparation for the
profession (2.07 satisfaction). These scores were close to the scores in the previous (2002) alumni
survey.
The degree of satisfaction with which the program objectives were met is summarized in the
following table.
Program outcomes
Degree met
a) Math, science, & engineering
1.40
b) design & conduct experiments
1.74
c) design a system
1.74
d) multi-disc teams
1.80
e) identify, formulate, & solve
1.40
f) professional and ethical resp
2.11
g) communicate effectively
2.11
h) broad education
2.00
i) life-long learning
1.44
j) contemporary issues
1.96
k) techniques, skills, & tools
1.66
l) professional & graduate prog
1.32
Program outcomes: alumni
B.
ACCREDITATION SUMMARY
25
Once again the scores are all above the minimum standard, but several do not meet the target
of 2.0. The scores of most concern are the degrees of satisfaction in professional and ethical
responsibility and of the ability to communicate effectively. and in contemporary issues.
The survey also asked questions regarding the importance and satisfaction of specific courses
and topics both within Engineering and in other Schools. Specific courses that were named as being
particulary helpful in preparation for the profession were EE 182 and 183 (material now covered in
EE 108B and EE 109), EE 104 (material now covered in EE 102B), EE 113 (material now covered
in EE 101B and EE 116), EE 122, EE 271, and 214. EE 261 was lauded as the most useful course,
but it was also critiqued as too much emphasizing math over application (by the same respondent!).
The survey also has a series of somewhat open questions and called for a variety of comments on
these questions and general issues. We include many of these comments as they provide hard data
on both good and bad aspects from the student point of view. Some names have been removed.
The questions are in boldface. Occasional comments regarding subsequent actions are in italics.
Where are Stanford’s undergraduate program, and the EE major in particular, strong
or weak? How would you suggest the program be improved?
• Probability and Statistics should be required courses. I graduated without taking any probability or statistics, and it caused problems in graduate school.
Probability and statistics are now required, EE 178 was developed to fill this need.
• Certain professors were more interested in research and graduate programs
The Stanford Electrical Engineering Department is indeed primarily a graduate department,
but we make continual efforts to encourage participation in the undergraduate program by
official recognition in our teaching policies and in appointment and promotion evaluations.
• No real great familiarity with many of the CAD programs used in industry, could use a
mandatory comp architecture class.
• Your academic advisors were weak in my opinion. In four years, I saw my academic advisor
twice, maybe three times. He was difficult to reach, and did not expose me to the the
possibilities of a career in EE.
• Opportunities for doing student-initiated research with faculty were difficult. Professors
should give more priority to training undergraduates outside coursework.
The REU program has gone a long way to resolve this problem.
• Small undergrad to graduate ratio leaves little room for undergrads to work with professors
• Could be improved with a focus on presentation skills, focus on process/manufacturing engineering, focus on reliability concerns as a very real problem.
• The coursework relies too much on intuition rather than mathematical rigor
• Weakness–students are exposed to practical side of EE at late stage. Strong points – Challenging and fairly demanding course curriculum.
• I felt that there was not enough depth. However, I think the recent changes made (to let
students take more EE electives) may alleviate these problems. But, the curriculum also
never taught me how everything came together. For example, I did not learn how control
design and manufacturing affects analog and digital circuit design.
B.
ACCREDITATION SUMMARY
26
• Major weakness is teaching quality of undergraduate classes. Need to encourage more of the
professors to devote more energy towards teaching.
• More Mentoring for Minorities and Women
The department supports the efforts of the Women in Electrical Engineering (WEE) to find
mentors for all interested undergraduates and works with the School to find mentors for underrepresented minorities.
• Better undergraduate advising could be very helpful. Info on which courses to take when,
what the specialty areas are all about, and info about possible careers would all be very
helpful. I hardly ever talked with my advisor. It’s hard to know what questions to ask
an advisor, and having the advisors take a more active role in getting information to the
undergrads would help out. The professors and courses, however, are quite good. It’s great
that the professors are very available to help students with the material. Prof. Boyd in
particular is very good at reminding students to make sure the numbers make sense, and to
think about when results look reasonable– a very important skill for an engineer.
• I think courses should have more formal presentations
• When I was a student, there was little opportunity for undergraduates and M.S. students
to be involved in research. Research was largely the domain of post-quals Ph.D. students.
I have heard reports that suggest this situation has improved for undergraduates, but for
M.S. students it has not. The fundamental problem is that the ratio of students (particularly
graduate students) to faculty is much too high. Only the most talented and motivated of EE
students at Stanford will be able to do serious research as part of their curricula. I accept
much of the blame for my failure to do research at Stanford: with improved organization,
determination, and discipline, I probably could have done it. But at many other universities
research is a standard part of the curriculum, not one that the student has to fight for especially for the M.S. degree. My education would have been better if that had been the
case at Stanford as well. strong: covers lots of info in short time, doesn’t let someone through
without good understanding of all areas of EE weak: not much help in job placement after
graduation
For undergraduates, the REU program has greatly helped this problem.
• Lacks a great deal of depth in concentration, not too applicable for the working world. Need to
reduce requirements not in specialty as well as parse science and math classes to the essential
and make applicable to EE. Need a lot more hands on classes (labs) since that is what you
would do in a company.
• I managed to get through without any courses (or parts of courses) covering Statistics and
Comm/DSP, probably should have done a little in these areas!
Probability and statistics are now required, discrete time signal processing is part of the core
(EE 102B), and EE 179 is a very popular 100 level class on Comm.
What changes/challenges do you foresee that EE graduates will face in the coming
years that can (should) be addressed through curriculum reform?
• learning more about how the industry works, its cycles, etc
B.
ACCREDITATION SUMMARY
27
• Students show know more about intellectual property and legal issues, such as patents.
EE 100 now includes at least one talk by an IP expert.
• Where are the engineering jobs in this country? Respect?
• Program needs to be dynamic in the face of rapidly changing technologies. Include focus on
display technologies, and courses about how computers will be migrating away from standard
Si processors and magnetic hard drives.
• Program should be a 5 year program, not 4. There is too much to go through in just 4 years.
• More cross disciplinary classes
• LESS JOBS. maybe offer MIS or other info. systems expertise courses to offset less need for
pure engineering science
• Need to be up to speed about latest technologies. The program addresses fundamentals
(mostly for electronics) but lacks information on current technologies, especially for nonelectronics specialties.
• International compeition in high-tech areas, how do we compete/cooperate/etc.
What was the most important technical knowledge that you gained at Stanford?
• Logic based problem solving
• structured thought process–how to break a problem apart into smaller more manageable
parts, how to use an oscilloscop
• EE 214, Stat 116 How to break down a big problem and solve it.
• EE 216 and EE 312 prepared me most for real world issues, and also gave me a foundation
for further learning.
• How to solve problems. EE 313 and EE 371 knowledge.
• Programming
• The general process for solving problems–not any particular knowledge in itself
• linear systems theory
• I gained lots of confidence that I could solve a difficult problem on my own. I was thrown
into so many taxing situations during school that I had to overcome so I knew I was ready
for anything in the professional world
• Digital design (EE 182/EE 183)
This material is now mostly in core course EE 108B and in specialty class EE 109.
• Ability to break big problems into a series of small, manageable ones.
What was the most important other knowledge that you gained at Stanford?
B.
ACCREDITATION SUMMARY
28
• Leadership – via participation in the SHPE organization
• networking amongst classmates
• Students with broad range of interests
• Don’t panic during crunch time.
• Importance of thoroughness, creativity, and balance.
• How to be versatile.
• Working late nights.
• Critical Thinking
• How to go about solving problems
• critical thinking as a part of my minor in history - this has nothing to do with my EE degree
• The academic world is pretty unrealistic sometimes. This was a plus to me, since I didn’t
like the personalities of most of my classmates (very petty and competitive)
• How to live, work, and get along with people of different backgrounds/values/races
• Teamwork and communication.
Were the educational facilities at Stanford adequate? What priority improvements
do you suggest?
• The now retired ”portable” labs were inadequate
• Yes, top rate
• Our EE dept was in trailers, now there seems to be nicer facilities.
• Yes, after the new EE building was built. Bambi was terrible.
• Yes. Facilities were never a limiting factor.
• No, but these facilities have been improved since my graduation with the addition of the HP
Science and Engineering Quad
• Yes. Professor to student advising could improve. Research experience for undergrads could
improve too.
• Yes, as soon as Packard finally opened.
• No, they were much improved the year after graduation
• They were very good.
• Facilities are great at Stanford
• ERL was run down, but we had the equipment we needed.
B.
ACCREDITATION SUMMARY
29
• Generally quite good. Always good choices in classes and didn’t have trouble getting classes
generally. Advisors that are more available (never met my post freshman advisor, not even to
get my requirements form signed!!). Exposing students to different opportunities that they
can explore with a EE as well as get an idea of the workplace.
Other comments/feedback?
• I felt overprepared technically at work and underprepared for politicing.
• Again, be flexible given impending dramatic changes in electrical engineering-related fields!
The basics will always be important, but give the undergrads the ability to persue knowledge
of the exciting new technologies appearing every day.
• The EE department as a whole seemed to devote more time, energy, resources toward the
graduate programs and research rather than educating undergraduate students.
• Would highly encourage making it easier for technical students to study abroad, it’s a good
experience that many eng. students refues to do because of difficulties in scheduling classes.
Student Surveys
Undergraduate students were invited to complete a survey during spring quarters 2003–2004,
2004–2005, and 2005–2006. The survey had a strong overlap with the alumni surveys with differences aimed at finding out more about how the current students chose their major and their
opinions regarding advising and program planning. A few questions were targeted specifically at
seniors. The results of these surveys are presented together to facilitate comparison and summary.
In 2004, 14 students (3 seniors) responded and in 2005, the number was 18 (again with 3
seniors). In 2006, we offered a modest raffle prize to stimulate input and received 33 respondents
(with 21 seniors). The survey was advertised with several reminders by email and announcement
in undergraduate classes.
The survey is consistent with the alumni survey in finding problems with advising. About 21%
(2004), 33% (2005), and 24% (2006) felt their advising was below average or poor. The problem of
earlier surveys of students never meeting a faculty adviser seems to have almost vanished, with only
one student in 2005 and two students in 2006 in this category. The majority of students consult
their adviser at least annually and over 30% more than quarterly. A majority of students consult
the departmental undergraduate advising TA one or more times, most when initially preparing
their program prior to meeting with their faculty adviser. 71.4% (2004), 83% (2005), and 88%
(2006) make use of the EE Web pages in planning their programs. In 2004 94% of the students
planned to pursue a graduate degree, in 2005 the number dropped to 79%, and in 2006 the number
climbed to 88%. When asked why they declared EE, answers typically praised their experience
with the introductory course ENGR 40 and their liking for hands on, digital products, computers,
problem solving, and robotics.
One 2004 senior was going to work at CERN, one continuing for the MS at Stanford, and one
going to Northwestern for a PhD in Biomedical Engineering. All 2005 seniors were continuing at
Stanford for an MS. In 2006, 33% of the seniors indicated working in industry as their immediate
plan after graduation, while 50% indicated MS studies at Stanford and 16% indicated graduate
studies at other universities.
As did the alumni, the students rated the degree to which the educational objectives and
program outcomes had been met in their opinion. The results are summarized in the following
B.
ACCREDITATION SUMMARY
30
tables. Again the numbers are 1 (very well met) to 4 (not well met) with a “no opinion” option
allowed which does not contribute to the score.
Educational objective
Degree met 2004 Degree met 2005
Technical Knowledge
1.53
1.82
Laboratory and Design Skills
1.64
2.05
Communication Skills
2.07
2.23
Preparation for Further Study
1.42
1.82
Preparation for Profession
2.07
2.11
Educational objectives: EE undergraduates
Program outcomes
Degree met 2004 Degree met 2005
a) math, science, & engineering
1.35
1.58
b) design & conduct experiments
1.64
1.88
c) design a system
1.50
2.06
d) multi-disciplinary teams
1.78
1.82
e) identify, formulate, & solve
1.42
1.88
f) professional and ethical resp
1.92
2.06
g) communicate effectively
2.00
2.17
h) broad education
2.07
2.06
i) life-long learning
1.85
1.87
j) contemporary issues
2.50
2.05
k) techniques, skills, & tools
1.50
1.70
l) professional & graduate prog
1.21
1.64
Program outcomes: EE undergraduates
Degree met 2006
1.78
1.81
2.21
1.87
2.15
Degree met 2006
1.63
1.90
2.03
1.81
1.78
2.06
2.03
2.06
1.75
2.03
1.69
1.71
The comments reaffirm continued difficulties with student satisfaction with the treatment of
professional and ethical responsibility and the ability to communicate effectively. The department
shares with the university the concern for the rating for broad education and contemporary issues.
The biggest concern, however, is the drop to 2.06 of satisfaction with the ability to design a system.
In 2004, 2005, and 2006 questions specifically dealt with the introduction of the new EE undergraduate core. As a quantitative question students were ask to rate their satisfaction with the new
core (EE 101A,B; 102A,B; 108A,B) as a solid and interesting foundation for the EE curriculum.
(Unfortunately, the scale chosen was 1 (low) to 5 (high), which is the reverse sense of what was
used for the preceding questions on educational objectives and program outcomes. This will be
changed on future surveys.) The mean score for 2004–the first year of the new core–was 3.07. In
2005 the score was 2.44, and in 2006 the score was 2.28.
In addition, the surveys asked specific questions. The following summarizes the responses and
gives selected comments.
What are the strengths and weaknesses of the new core curriculum and how could
it be improved?
The surveys began during the transition period when the new core was introduced. The flexibility and the independence of the three two-quarter core sequences were recognized. However,
several concerns were raised, including the difficulty of certain courses, the lack of relevance for
some of the lab components, and the variability of the teaching quality.
B.
ACCREDITATION SUMMARY
31
2004
• Having taken courses from both the old and new cores, I believe that the old core established
a better foundation of understanding of important concepts than the new core. While the
new core does offer more flexibility in the courses a student can take, I believe that it causes
undergrads to overspecialize during a period of their education in which they should be
exposed to a much broader curriculum. Class timing and location were not good. Of those
classes, I only took ee108b, and the labs need to be organized and working before the class
starts, rather than after a student figures out how to fix the example code. like how 101A and
B are related, and 102AB are related. like how they’re grouped together. provides a basis
from which to explore concentrations
• I don’t have personal experience with it, but have heard that it is very disorganized and
difficult to have classes taught by 5 profs with none clearly in charge. HUGE improvement
is integration of lab work into in-class theory. This is the best way to produce engineers
equipped for the workforce. EE majors who know all the theory are great, but far too few
people are good at practical work when they graduate from Stanford. It is important to have
these practical skills not only in pursuing further graduate studies, but also when students
take jobs in the real world. Afterall, engineering is all about being hands-on!
2005
• The EE core is less regimented. The greatest weakness is that I feel that EE101B at least
should be a 5 unit course with a 3 hr lab and 1:15 lectures three days a week.
• EE101A was too easy, EE101B was too difficult, balance more. EE102A/B exams were much
too hard! EE108A/B assignments have too many bugs, need continuity between successive
TAs
• None of them are well taught. Every single core course should be taught not by professors
but by dedicated teaching staff, i.e., lecturers. The 108 series is extremely user-unfriendly.
The 102 series suffers from a lack of consistency. 101A was too easy in the beginning and too
hard at the end. 101B was probably the best taught core course I’ve taken so far.
• I believe that the old EE core was much better suited in providing students with a strong
and broad foundation of the basics. Also, the lab component of the 108 series is a waste of
time–there has to be better ways to spend our time and energy rather than forcing us to
spend all quarter debugging Verilog (which can be learned in industry in a matter of days to
weeks).
• The EE core does a very good job of introducing some major concepts in circuits, signal
processing, and digital systems. The manner in which EE102B has been taught the last two
years should be revised, as both professors have focused far too much on the equations and
taught very little insight into signal processing. The same goes for EE102a, but not as much.
• EE 101 and 102 are quality classes, but EE 108 is terribly organized...I believe that EE 108
A could be taught at a faster pace and EE 108 B could be slower. Furthermore, the labs in
EE 108A need to be restructured to make sure everything WORKS.
• The material is relevant and fundamental. The number of times it is offered during the year
is limiting.
B.
ACCREDITATION SUMMARY
32
2006
• Strengths are the two-quarter sequences that complement each other. Not very many weaknesses that I could think of.
• Strengths: all the classes were VERY interesting. Weakness: Graduate students taking EE
core classes can shift the curves significantly.
• The courses cover a lot and you don’t really learn anything in depth, but I guess that is what
undergrad is about. I really did not like the fact that we had NO WRITTEN text for EE
108A. That was horrible. I LOVE the book for EE108B. It really helps me understand stuff.
I also don’t like that we leave the classes with no ability to make something from scratch. We
do very complex projects but they are all based off of huge starter files and we never learn
how to just hook up and FPGA with nothing and make it work. That would be a good skill
to come away with.
• I think 108 is brutal, and the labs are horrible. That part should be a separate class. The
101 series is very well taught, and I learrned a lot. 102 is really interesting even though 102A
had a rough start.
• Strengths: won’t scare anyone away, with the possible exception of 108A. Weaknesses: 101’s
are too focused on MOSFETs and don’t give enough of an introduction to simulation and
design.
• I think its a good runby of all the material, but the courses move so quickly that it is very
easy to forget the material after you take the course. The courses drill you for 10 weeks, then
its over, and many students forget what they may have learned. I also think that the Digital
core classes are rather poorly taught; no one who gets through these courses has much of a
handle on Verilog. I think the lab should be better integrated into the Digital course, and I
think the teachers should spend more time teaching Verilog.
• 101b with shenoy was great. 102 was a painful introduction to signals, could have been better
taught. 108 was also kind of painful. The only thing that made 102 and 108 good for me,
were the awesome TAs. I learned everything from them.
• The 108 sequence is very good in that the bulk of the work is lab-based. However, it gives
off the false impression that a digital system must utilize an FPGA, which is absolutely
not the case. Digital systems labs should be expanded to include the design of broader
systems, not just reprogrammable logic-based systems. The 101 sequence presented a very
good introduction to the analysis of transistor-based circuits, but it failed to incorporate any
sort of design problems. There is a huge gap between the EE101 sequence and EE214, which
should be bridged by adding design problems to the EE101 problem sets. The 102 sequence
was somewhat dry and heavy on analysis. It could be improved by incorporating more design
examples. Labs that manipulate audio signals could be an interesting way to make signal
processing seem more applicable to students.
• Can take 101, 102, 108 independent of one another. There is a lot of room for improvement
for teaching and tutorials.
• The quality of instruction in the EE core varies dramatically depending on the quality of
the professor. There are some professors that are not very effective at engaging students,
resulting in the course being extremely arduous and uninteresting.
B.
ACCREDITATION SUMMARY
33
• strength - comprehesiveness. weakness - a huge burden of work. signals had too much theory
and lacked application.
• Not all labs are properly setup and contain many bugs. Also, some TAs have little understanding of the labs while others have an amazing understanding.
• Strengths: each sequence is independent. Each sequence by itself fulfills basic requirements
for higher classes in that area.
Additional Feedback
Please list any couses which stood out as producing any of the above outcomes (list
the outcomes with the course).
A variety of courses were praised and criticized by the respondents. Several lab courses received
recognition for providing good hands-on experiences.
2004
• EE 179: great class, mostly because much of it was EE 104; EE 108A: terribly taught and
poorly organized; E 40: excellent introduction to EE
• EE122 - teaches design, EE101 - good fundamentals
• EE 121, EE183, and 122 for applicable skills, EE 179, CS107, EE182, EE282 for combining
theory and practice
2005
• EE41- Great breadth
• EE122, EE133 and EE144 are great lab courses that prepare students hands-on in industry,
i found it very helpful to apply and build circuits / antennas that we learned theory about
in class. more emphasis on application over theory is a MUST!!
• EE 102 series was poor. I also thought that EE 108A tried to do too much. In lecture we
learned some theory, then during the labs we were supposed to learn some design. I think the
course showed focus on either theory or design. EE 122 was a good course because it focused
on experimentation and design. While I did not learn much analog theory, after taking the
class, I felt much more comfortable building and designing basic circuits in lab.
• Great courses: 261, 144/245, 141, 142; good courses: 121, 179, 178; bad courses: 108A, 108B,
284
• EE214 was very difficult even after EE101A,B
• EE109 was a very good class in teaching design. Very few classes in the Stanford EE program
still teach design that well, and the few that do are rapidly being cancelled, such as EE281,
EE272a, and EE118. I also felt that I was not very well prepared for EE265 (Signal Processing
Lab), since this course focused a lot on intuition, which was not taught very well in the signal
processing core.
B.
ACCREDITATION SUMMARY
34
• EE122 is good and EE108b teaches a lot of interesting stuff. EE108a is hard to get a handle
on though. the 102 series was badly taught when i went through it; consequently, I know
nothing and I know not how I passed. 101 series is solid, though it moves far too quickly
(necessary, I suppose, for the introduction to 214).
• EE116 was a wonderful class with wonderful teaching. It taught me not only the basics but
advanced information as well as contemporary relevance. EE133 also was a great class.
2006
• Prof Murmann teaches all the relevant theory, but emphasizes what we really need to know
so we don’t waste time with details that we can easily look up if we need to. I strongly believe
that all courses should be developed and modeled on this method of teaching.
• E40 - AWESOME prep for all future courses. EE108B - fun with the FPGA but very time
consuming. Wonderful and applicable material though. STS 101 - AMAZING course!!!!
Really opened my eyes to issues that I will have to face as an engineer.
• EE122 - lifelong learning, practical knowledge EE261, EE263, E105 - multidisciplinary teams,
background for admission to other prof. graduate programs
• EE 214 was especially helpful in career-related work in circuits design
• EE 144 (lab proficiency), EE 122 (lab proficiency), EE 134, EE 101B (analytical skills)
• EE108A was the course that made be decide to become an EE major. Professor Dally focused
on individual and hands-on learning, but provided support and help when needed. In my
opinion EE102B is one of my most hated classes. Although it might be because the content
is not in my area of specialization, Professor Kahn does not do a very good job engaging
students, fostering interest, and effectively conveying the course material.
• EE109: Favorite course and best lab. The TAs were the best I’ve ever had. Every other class
had very poor TAs and labs were designed poorly.
• ee133 was a great lab course. so was ee108b. ee144 was also a great lab course, things that
are hands on
Where are Stanford’s undergraduate program, and the EE major in particular,
strong/weak? How would you suggest the program be improved?
Students noted the program as being strong in theory but several indicated a desire for more
design-oriented courses. A number of students cited the demanding nature of the program. Others
suggested that full-time lecturers should be hired to teach the core classes and that advising was
an area in need of improvement.
2004
• Stanford’s undergraduate program unduly penalizes engineering majors due to general education requirements, which leaves less time for advanced engineering courses. Thus, I think it’s
important for the EE department to focus on an undergrad program that establishs a strong
foundation of understanding of key concepts; with this strong foundation, students will be
better prepared and motivated to pursue graduate-level study. For these reasons, I suggest
moving back to the old core.
B.
ACCREDITATION SUMMARY
35
• emphasize more on basics of electronics – a class like EE122, what comes out of the wall, how
simple electronic devices work. should be a practical EE class – REALLY practical, that just
deals with basic circuit stuff, little or NO theory
• the sample programs in the handbook are not very rigorous and mislead people in that some
classes should really be taken.earlier than when they are recommended in the handbook. i
would recommend including real student schedules from those who have gone through the
EE major. advising needs to be improved also, the advisors don’t make much effort to make
sure you’re taking the right courses, you kind of have to do it yourself anyway.
• not enough lab/practical cool classes, like 122, 133, 144 more hardware requirements...but i
htink that has been taken care of w/ the new core. also more emphasis on CMOS–also in
new core... also, new technologies–such as nanotech, and MEMs
2005
• I don’t feel i learned the material in 101 and 102 WELL, I always felt I was struggling. I like
how there’s a lot of breadth we can take, Stanford has a great graduate program. I like the
hands on labs a lot, I hear other schools don’t have the facillities / equipment that stanford
can provide. excellent for engineering undergrads
• Teaching, in general, is very poor in EE. I feel that this could be remedied by having introductory courses taught by lecturers whose only job is to teach – this is the model that the
CS department has applied, with great success. Teaching in intro CS courses is probably the
best teaching in the School of Engineering.
• Generally strong, but weak in the following areas: training students to understand professional and ethical responsibilities, effective communication especially in writing, fostering
cooperative and effective teamwork
• Stanford’s undergraduate EE program is very strong in teaching theory. However, the EE
program is very weak in teaching and allowing students to do design. Very few classes remain
that are hands on, except for in the analog realm with courses like EE122, EE133, and EE144.
The rest of the design courses either use Spice or are digital in nature and use FPGA’s. There
are no digital system design classes that allow students to develop their own embedded system,
which was offered by the recently canceled EE281. There are also no longer any classes that
teach PCB layout, which is a very important thing to learn. There needs to be more classes
that are hands-on in nature, more classes that offer students the chance to develop complex
systems from the ground up, without being handed major pieces to begin with. Students
should learn real-world design so that there is an easier transition to industry, and EE109 is
one step in the right direction, but there still need to be far more classes similar in philosophy.
2006
• During the school year, it was hard to get involved with any sort of research with a professor
(unless I had done REU before) or grad student. Having that experience would have greatly
enhanced my time here at Stanford.
• EE undergrad program needs to have more comprehensive foundation on basic EE fundamentals (device physics, circuits, signals and systems). I think including lab components in
B.
ACCREDITATION SUMMARY
36
the core is a good idea to develop applied intuition behind fundamentals, but I would like
to see more opportunities for larger team-based projects as in EE 144/245, or in many ME
design courses.
• We get a lot of lab experience which is good, but as I mentioned above we get no ability to
start anything from scratch. All our projects are based off of huge starter files. I like the
diversity of classes although it is very demanding. I like that you can choose your specialty.
• We learn a lot and are put to a high standard. But sometimes I feel like we’re second tier to
the EE grad students. I hear that the new curriculum is a lot better than what we had 5
years ago.
• I think its strong in challenging students. I think the Digital core program, and maybe the
Photonics concentration are a little weaker right now but could be strenghtened. I think the
Photonics program should be tied closer to Applied Physics, and I think that Verilog should
be taught better in the Digital core classes.
• There’s not as much help for EE’s transitioning from taking 100 level courses to 200 level +
up courses
• Bad professors make life difficult. Good professors are the strength (Boyd, Shenoy, Osgood),
REU is a strength. make the units a little larger so that people aren’t struggling to take 12
units a quarter.
• The EE major is very strong on analysis, but very weak on design. There are more designoriented graduate courses, but even these are limited to chip design and not system design.
• I think that Stanford’s EE program is strong in its research opportunities for undergraduates.
Having participated in REU, I felt that I learned more in 10 weeks of conduction research than
I did in all my years of coursework at Stanford. One major weakness of the EE program here is
the lack of effective TAs. Most of the TAs here are foregin graduate students who have almost
no passion for teaching and no concern about student performance. I am a section leader for
the CS department, and I think that by having passionate and knowledgable undergraduates
teaching other undergraduates would improve the quality of the undergraduate EE program
immensely.
• EE program perhaps too broad – freshmen and sophomores need more guidance when picking
their concentrations, what their getting into
What changes/challenges do you foresee that EE graduates will face in the coming
years that can (should) be addressed through curriculum reform?
A wide range of concerns were expressed. Some concerns focused on the availability of jobs
and being adequately educated to be appealling to potential employers. Curriculum suggestions
included adding more design courses and biology-related courses. Some feedback indicated that
the new core sequence emphasized overspecialization.
2004
• More design courses
B.
ACCREDITATION SUMMARY
37
• biotech is big.. maybe require an EE related biomechanics/electronics course? or intro bio
course.. that would be interesting
• some specialties do not prepare graduates as well for work in industry- seems like the lab
courses teach the most practical knowledge, but they take up too much time and we may only
take one lab in our specialty during undergrad years. in the coming years, we may also need
to teach more ee classes that have biological applications, such as biological signal processing.
stanford has been slow in offering these types of courses, and biomedical applications are
going to be very important in the future and we need EE graduates to work in this field.
• Tasks are becoming more integrated - digital is analog on some level, everything involves
waves, things like EE273 (digital systems engineering) are becoming more central, the challenge of building transistors is no longer interesting so less focus on that, more on putting
together more complex systems
2005
• It should be possible to count biology and chemistry courses for more than just the 45 units of
math and science. Biology and chemistry are becoming increasingly critical for a large segment
of the EE community, and this trend will only accelerate in the future. The department would
be wise to take note of this fact.
• Lack of a broad understanding of EE basics (seems like the new core is encouraging students to
specialize early on in their academic careers without making them realize that specialization
is not very valuable without strong fundamentals). If the core is left unchanged, then students
must be encouraged to take classes from a broad range of specialties.
• Few EE graduates will be able to develop systems on their own. In industry, they will
be given the specifications of a system to design, and nothing more. In classes, we are
given the specifications, the components to use, major blocks to incorporate into the design,
etc. Students need to learn to do their own designs from scratch, or very nearly scratch.
Again, PCB layout is an important thing to teach, and is very practical. Doing actual design
is currently not emphasized very well at all in the curriculum, and that presents a major
difficulty in transitioning out of academia.
• less device physics, more programming and analog design
2006
• Adjusting from an undergrad here to a coterm student in circuits was very difficult for me.
I felt that the undergrad core was very inadequate in preparing me for the level of material
presented in courses like 214, 314, etc. I feel like there has been a shift away from circuits
towards signals, systems, and digital that leaves much of the department’s circuit expertise
untapped for undergrads.
• Jobs are being shipped off to India. How can we be more appealing to the employers?
• Probably the scaling down of circuits that will force us to include other physical laws or
redesign the transistor.
• Teaching more with fewer labs.
B.
ACCREDITATION SUMMARY
38
• I think that a lot of EE graduates may have made it through the courses alright, but will not
retain the material for interviews, etc. If somehow the program could be slowed down a bit,
I think that would help.
• EE graduates will need both breadth and depth...balancing this is going to be a challenge in
the future
• Stanford EE graduates are good at analysis, but don’t have enough lab skills.
• Inability to get jobs with a BS. Curriculum should include practical skills that are desired by
employers.
What was the most important technical knowledge that you gained at Stanford?
A large collection of comments were given. Circuit analysis, digital systems design, and programming were among the items most often mentioned.
2004
• Designing my own project
• so far... prob circuit theory
• pairing theory with the ability to problem solve and debug done both in programming and
in lab classes
• programming
2005
• Verilog / hardware design got me a job
• hands on use of equipment
• Probably C and C++. Neither of which was taught to me by the EE department. EE should
do a better job of teaching tools, such as MATLAB – the instruction in the use of these tools
is haphazard at best and, at times, nonexistent.
• The most important technical knowledge I gained at Stanford was learning very thoroughly
about digital system design from the research I have been doing with Professor Inan’s research
group for the last year. This experience has been amazingly helpful in teaching me how to
build and debug large digital systems, and this knowledge will be invaluable to me in the
future.
• All of the lab classes in EE are very valuable in teaching real applications and skills
• circuits and digital systems
• How different signals systems function in the real world
2006
• The idea of feedback- a bit strange and counterintuitive, but very powerful.
B.
ACCREDITATION SUMMARY
39
• general problem solving; image processing
• Programming (C++ and Java), which I learned from the CS department, not the EE department.
• Algorithms and programming ability.
• Digital Systems
• CS106a/b CS107, EE122, EE108a/b, EE263, Engr105/205 - because they are the classes that
will get me jobs
• Circuit Design
• Learning system design through my research group, which I became part of through an REU
and stayed with afterwards.
• Signal processing.
• verilog/HDL, circuit design, any programming language
• computer architecture, how computers work, how circuits work. i wish signals classes were
more useful in industry (haven’t seen many job postings for signals)
Were the educational facilities at Stanford adequate? What priority improvements
do you suggest?
In general, the students gave positive comments about the quality of the facilities. Several
students voiced a desire for an open lab and greater access to the facilities.
2004
• The facilities at Stanford are great; no comments for improvement here.
• lab is great, sometimes messy. need a good way to clean up resistors
• labs should be more widely available to students not just during lab classes, but as a way of
better learning theory in theory courses as well
2005
• in terms of technical quality of lab supplies, the new FPGAs are excellent
• The labs in Packard are great.
• Computing resources could probably be augmented, but overall I have been much more satisfied with facilities and resources than with instruction.
• This may not be feasible, but I think it would be great to have an EE themed dorm equiped
with some FPGA’s, function generators, and scopes so that we can work on our projects in
our residences.
• Open lab for undergraduates!
B.
ACCREDITATION SUMMARY
40
• The educational facilities were okay. There should be a lab available to students that has
soldering irons, oscilloscopes, logic analyzers, function generators, generally any sort of benchtop lab equipment, so that students working on individual projects can actually have access
to facilities and equipment to build whatever it is they would like to build on. MIT does
something similar, except goes one step further in allowing students to take time off to work
on an individually chosen project. Students need to be given more of an opportunity to take
initiative and be able to practice on their own the things they’ve been taught.
2006
• Overall, the educational facilities at Stanford are very very good.
• yes. I like them. You should make the FPGAs work. It is NOT fun to spend 5 hours
debugging code that works fine just to find out that it was the stupid FPGA that was broken.
I love Packard. It is a beautiful building. Bytes should be open later though. We all are
there until like 1 AM and we starve. We should also be allowed to play with the big machine
tools. Those are fun but EEs don’t get to use them.
• Stanford facilities, esp. EE, are awesome :) We are very lucky.
• There should be an undergraduate individual project lab that allows EE students to work on
their own side projects in their free time.
• adequate - students should be allowed to check out FPGA boards or log in remotely to them.
Alternatively, the labs can be more aerated and made more fun to work in.
• Good facilities and equipment. Would be nice to have more open access to labs.
What was the most important other knowledge that you gained at Stanford?
The students listed a wide range of skills and experiences. Among the more commonly cited
responses were forming relationships, communication, project management, and how to work with
others.
2004
• Learning how to work with classmates
• just how to be social, how the industry works, feel like I’ve gotten a good primer to that
• communication, particularly oral communication
• Personal development – not directly learned from classes.
• project management
• hands on lab experience
2005
• the connection between school/research and industry. stanford is surrounded by silicon valley,
have a sense of the technological spirit
B.
ACCREDITATION SUMMARY
41
• Anything I learned in lectures is valuable, but research experience still was the most significant.
• Time management, and project management
• How to work with others
2006
• Matlab
• How to write and communicate well.
• I think I’ve gained a lot of general social knowledge that has been helpful.
• Grades, especially in a technical field, are not all that important.
• Who I am. How to overcome difficult times and disappointments in my life as an overachiever/perfectionist.
• how to conduct research (REU), gained lots of role-models (profs and TAs)
• What I want to do with my life
• programming language, life skills - communications/teamwork
• just how to time manage, be on top of things, break down problems and solve them
Other comments/feedback?
2004
• some courses are a lot more work than 3 units- is there any way to have units reflect the
actual amount of work needed?
• please find better teachers who care about teaching! Andrea Goldsmith was one of the few
and most noteable.
2005
• It would be great if the design classes I mentioned above could be brought back (EE281,
EE272a and EE272b, and EE118), because these classes seemed really fun, and students who
took these courses while they were still offered said that they got the most valuable knowledge
of their EE undergrad careers from these classes.
• EE is a rough major to complete while as a varsity athlete. I found a few professors to be
less than understanding about the athletic situation and 20 hrs of practice per week.
2006
• In general, I think the EE undergrad program could do a better job at 1) teaching good
writing skills (the WIM class is completely inadequate and has no relevance to real journal
writing), 2) emphasizing the importance of good teamwork and communication, 3) fostering
a strong sense of ethics and the social/global relevance of engineering work in general.
B.
ACCREDITATION SUMMARY
42
• I like our program. Good work!!
• very poor advising/professor interests in students development
• I wish a lot of courses were offered more than once a year. It’s really hard to plan the 4 yr
plan, and going abroad like I did was difficult.
• good profs and TAs made EE a joy. I found a lot of things I wanted to learn more about
in the future. bad profs/TAs/ and bad starter code/poorlyconcieved assignments made life
really sad. But I guess that’s just the way the real-world is, and its just as well that Stanford
EE didn’t try to shield me from that.
• would like to see more teamwork in the students in the department
• Applying to graduate was a major pain. Even though I had completed all of my requirements
I had to talk to numerous people for a week in order to get my application approved. Then,
it was still denied to the registrar’s office and it took me a bunch of additional phone calls
just to get the registrar office to agree with the EE department. Taking classes should be the
hard part of my career so it was extremely annoying to run in circles just to get my degree
approved.
(e)
2002–2006 Program Changes
(f )
Material on program outcomes and assessments available for ABET review
The materials that will be available for review during the ABET visit to demonstrate achievement
of the Program Outcomes and Assessment:
• Course outlines, descriptions and texts
• Course materials that illustrate evaluation of student performance
• Example design projects
• Student surveys from spring 2004–2006, including exit surveys of graduating seniors.
• Alumni surveys from spring 2004 and 2006.
• Employer surveys from summer 2005
Surveys will include both summaries (contained in this report) and raw data.
4.
Professional Component
The curricular requirements for a BS degree in Electrical Engineering are a combination of requirements set by the University, the School of Engineering, and the Department of Electrical
Engineering. The process by which the faculty revises the Department and School requirements
have been described previously. In general, the requirements are discussed on an ongoing basis at
monthly meetings of the Academic Affairs Committee, which in turn considers recommendations
from individual Lab faculty meetings, from the surveys of the constituencies, and from the undergraduate luncheons and related events. University requirements are set by the University Faculty
Senate which comprises faculty from all schools and departments.
B.
ACCREDITATION SUMMARY
43
The basic curriculum is presented in Appendix I(A), Table 1, and in the Stanford University
School of Engineering Undergraduate Handbook. Courses are identified by category in Table 1 to
ease verification of ABET Criterion 4 (Professional Component) and ABET Criterion 8 (Program
Criteria). Appendix I(A), Table 2, provides information on course and section size. Appendix I(B)
contains course syllabi for all courses.
The aspects of the academic preparation for the electrical engineering profession most important
for ABET Criterion 4 are summarized here.
The degree requirements for the BSEE are set by the University, the School of Engineering,
and the Department of Electrical Engineering. These various sets of requirements are summarized
below. It should be pointed out that the Department of Electrical Engineering is responsible only
for its own requirements. It has little influence on University requirements and an indirect influence
on School requirements.
The University requires a minimum of 180 units of allowable university work for all BS degrees,
which implies 45 (quarter) units per year. The University graduation requirements further ensure
that ABET Criterion (4c) is met. These requirements include
• Writing and Rhetoric Requirement
English composition requirement: satisfied by two classes or by approved transfer credit.
Writing in Major (WIM) requirement: For the Electrical Engineering program this is fulfilled
by ENGR 102E in conjunction with the Digital Systems I EE 108A.
• General Education Requirement (GER)
Introduction to the Humanities (IHUM): 3 courses
Disciplinary Breadth: 1 course each from each of the following 5 areas:
Engineering and Applied Sciences
Humanities
Mathematics
Natural Sciences
Social Sciences
Education for Citizenship: 1 course each from 2 of the following 4 subjects areas (can be
satisfied by disciplinary breadth courses):
American Cultures
Global Community
Gender Studies
Ethical Reasoning
• Language Requirement
One year college level language (or AP or SAT II or competency test)
• Curricular requirements of at least one major department or program.
Students must declare a major not later than the achievement of junior status (completion of
85 units). The University recommends that the major program should require approximately
B.
ACCREDITATION SUMMARY
44
55-65 units, about 1/3 of the total program. In order to ensure breadth, the University
recommends that the major should not require more than 115-125 units or 2/3 of the program
and it should not require the student to take more than 1/3 of their program within the
Department.
The details of the EE Department requirements for the BSEE are described in Appendix I (A),
Table 1. For 2006-2007, they can be summarized as follows:
• 45 units (one year) of math and science, currently requiring specific sequences of mathematics
(28-30 units, including probability and statistics) and physics (8 units) courses. Of the 45
units, at least 12 units must be in science. (The School of Engineering requirement is for
a minimum of 40 units or a maximum of 45 units.) With the laboratories in physics, this
requirement meets ABET’s Criterion 4(a).
• A course in basic probability and statistics is required. The recommended course is EE
178. This course counts towards the math units, but the examples are drawn from EE. Other
courses from other departments (including Stat 116) are also allowed to fulfill the requirement.
• One course in Technology and Society (School of Engineering Requirement.) These courses
treat the borders of the technical profession and the rest of society, variously treating questions
of ethics, economics, and politics.
• Three courses in “Engineering Fundamentals.” (School of Engineering Requirement) Three
approved basic courses in various engineering disciplines with ENGR 70X (CS 106X) required
and at least one course must not be in EE or CS. A proposal is being considered that would
drop the requirement for ENGR 70X provided a more advanced computer programming course
is taken in its place.
• Core courses required of all undergraduate EE students (circuits and systems, electronics,
analog and digital laboratories, fields and waves) (EE 101A,B, 102A,B, 108A,B, (ENGR 41
or EE 141)). EE 122 will no longer be required starting in 2006–2007.
• A specialty sequence of at least three approved courses in one of the areas of Computer
Hardware, Computer Software, Controls, Circuits and Devices, Fields and Waves, Signal
Processing and Communications, or Solid State and Photonic Devices.
• A design course from an approved list.
• Electives
The core, specialty, and electives are considered “Engineering Depth.” The total units from
Engineering Fundamentals and Engineering Depth must be at least 68 quarter units. Both Engineering Fundamentals and Engineering Depth are “engineering topics” in ABET parlance, and
hence these requirements satisfy the ABET Criterion 4(b) of one and one-half years (67.5 quarter
units). Seminars do not count towards the 68 units.
The Department requires that the mathematics requirement be fulfilled by courses including
differential and integral calculus in single and multiple variables, linear algebra, and differential
equations, consistent with ABET Criterion 8 (Program Criteria specific to EE.) This is accomplished by Math 41, 42, either Math 51 and 52 or CME 100 and 104, and either Math 53 or CME
or 102. The Department requires students to take a sequence of physics courses including mechanics, electricity, and magnetism. This is typically accomplished by Physics 41 and 43. Physics 45,
B.
ACCREDITATION SUMMARY
45
Light and Heat, will no longer be required starting in 2006–2007 to give students greater flexibility
in their science selections. The Department requires a course in basic probability. The preferred
course is EE 178, which includes a component on basic statistics. Other options are Stat 116, Math
151, and CME 106.
Laboratory skills are taught in the core courses Circuits (EE 101A,B) and Digital Systems (EE
108A,B) and enhanced in the various project and design classes for each specialty. Many students
first encounter labs in the strongly recommended (but not required) introductory course ENGR
40. Students are exposed to design issues in the early laboratory courses and are tested on their
ability to set up experiments and verify engineering principles. All EE students are required to take
courses addressing basic theory of circuits (EE 101A,B), signal processing and linear systems (EE
102A,B), and digital systems (EE 108A,B). All students must take a basic physics for electrical
engineering course which includes electromagnetic theory (EE 41 or EE 141).
All students must take an approved specialty sequence chosen from one of the seven areas
of computer hardware, computer software, controls, circuits and devices, fields and waves, signal
processing and communications, or solid state and photonic devices. Individual specialty sequences
can be arranged subject to adviser and department approval.
Students are prepared for engineering practice by development of analytical, design, and communication skills throughout the curriculum and by a culminating design project. Each specialty
sequence has at least one design project course comprising an open-ended design project with an
oral or written presentation (often both). Most encourage or require teamwork and all deal with
all phases of the project including specification, coding or implementation, testing, and reporting
under faculty supervision. The list of approved design classes is determined each year by the Academic Affairs Committee and prizes are given at graduation for the best five or six design projects
in these classes. The current list of design courses are listed below. includes
Course
EE 109
EE 133
EE 134
EE 144
EE 168
CS 194
ENGR 206
EE 256
EE 262
EE 265
Title
Digital Systems Design Laboratory
Analog Communications Design Project
Introduction to Photonics
Wireless Electromagnetic Design Laboratory
Introduction to Digital Image Processing
Software Project
Control System Design and Simulation
Numerical Electromagnetics
Two-Dimensional Imaging
Signal Processing Laboratory
Our degree of success at meeting the requirements of Criterion 4 is assessed based on a variety
of indicators, with the primary measures being the alumni and employer surveys, which reflect the
impact of our undergraduate programs on the subsequent careers of our graduates. Additional
indicators include grades in the key courses and on the individual design projects.
(a)
Honors
The department offers an Honors Degree, which offers a unique opportunity for qualified undergraduate majors to conduct independent study (EE 190) and research with a faculty mentor. In
both the REU and Honors programs the research laboratories of the individual faculty are made
available to the undergraduate. As there are essentially as many such labs as there are faculty and
B.
ACCREDITATION SUMMARY
46
as these labs are primarily devoted to graduate students and graduate research, the details are not
listed here.
The Electrical Engineering Department offers a program leading to a Bachelor of Science in
Electrical Engineering with Honors. This program offers a unique opportunity for qualified undergraduate majors to conduct independent study and research at an advanced level with a faculty
mentor, graduate students, and fellow undergraduates. To qualify, students must complete following requirements:
1. Submit an application, including the thesis proposal, by Autumn Quarter of senior year signed
by the thesis advisor and second reader (one must be a member of the Electrical Engineering
faculty).
2. Maintain a grade point average of at least 3.5 in Electrical Engineering courses.
3. Take at least 10 units of EE 191. These units must be letter graded.
4. Submit two final copies of the honors thesis approved by your advisor and second reader.
5. Attend the Electrical Engineering Honors Symposium at the end of Spring Quarter and give
a poster or oral presentation.
(b)
Minor in Electrical Engineering
General requirements and policies for a minor in the School of Engineering are:
1. A School of Engineering minor consists of a set of courses totaling not less than 18 and not
more than 36 units, with a minimum of six courses of at least 3 units each.
2. The set of courses should be sufficiently coherent as to present a body of knowledge within a
discipline or subdiscipline.
3. Prerequisite mathematics, statistics, or science courses, such as those normally used to satisfy the schools requirements for a department major, may not be used to satisfy the requirements of the minor. Conversely, engineering courses that serve as prerequisites for subsequent
courses must be included in the unit total of the minor program.
4. Departmentally based minor programs are structured at the discretion of the sponsoring
department, subject only to requirements (1), (2), and (3) above.
A minor in Electrical Engineering requires the completion of one of three options as below:
Course
ENGR 40
EE 101A
EE 101B
Title
Introductory Electronics
Signal Processing and Linear Systems I
Signal Processing and Linear Systems II
Units
5
4
4
Option I
Course
ENGR 40
EE 102A
EE 102B
Title
Introductory Electronics
Signal Processing and Linear Systems I
Signal Processing and Linear Systems II
Units
5
4
4
B.
ACCREDITATION SUMMARY
47
Option II
Course
ENGR 40
EE 108A
EE 108B
Title
Introductory Electronics
Signal Processing and Linear Systems I
Signal Processing and Linear Systems II
Units
5
4
4
Option III
plus four graded EE courses of level 100 or higher with a total of at least 13 units.
5.
Faculty
Stanford University has extremely rigorous search and appointment procedures, which along with
its outstanding student population and its location have resulted in a faculty of rich technical and
intellectual diversity with a strong international reputation and visibility in the profession. There
are currently 60 regular (tenure-line) faculty, 6 research faculty, and 1 teaching emeritus professor.
Active faculty accomplishments include the following (we have not counted nonteaching emeritii)
There are 28 IEEE Fellows, 4 Fellows of the ACM, 3 Fellows of the Optical Society of America, 2
Fellows of the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, and individual Fellows of
the American Institute for Medical and Biological Engineering, the Royal Academy of Engineering,
the American Physical Society, the Institute of Mathematical Statistics, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Two active faculty members were Guggenheim Fellows. There
are 16 members of the National Academy of Engineering, 3 members of the National Academy of
Sciences, 3 members of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and one of the Institute of
Medicine. Nine faculty received IEEE Third Millennium Medals. Three junior faculty have received
NSF Career Awards in the past three years. Many faculty have received major awards from their
IEEE Societies as well as IEEE Field awards and major IEEE medals; examples include the Solid
State Circuits Technical Field Award, the Cledo Brunetti Award, the Andrew S. Grove award, the
Heinrich Hertz Medal, the Robert N. Noyce medal, the Richard W. Hamming Medal, the John
Von Neumann Medal and the Medal of Honor. Major awards from other organizations received
by active faculty include the Benjamin Franklin Medal and the Erlang Prize. Government awards
include a Presidential Award for Excellence in Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Mentoring
and a Presidential National Medal of Science.
The many awards from professional societies attest to both the international reputation and
the professional service of the faculty.
Roughly a third of the EE faculty hold joint appointments with other departments, mostly with
Computer Science but also with Applied Physics, Statistics, Materials Science and Engineering,
Management Science and Engineering, and Geophysics.
The Stanford EE Department awards four times as many MS degrees as BS degrees and more
PhDs than BS degrees. Nonetheless, the majority of EE professors regularly teach classes with
undergraduates. The normal course load of the EE Department is 3 courses per year. The Department encourages all faculty to teach at least one course at the 100 (sophomore/junior) level or the
200 (senior/early graduate school) level.
The faculty of the EE Department are divided into five groups, called “Laboratories,” roughly
according to research interests and corresponding teaching responsibilities. These include the Computer Systems Lab (CSL), most of whose members hold joint appointments with the Computer
Science Department, the Integrated Circuits Lab (ICL), the Information Systems Lab (ISL), the
B.
ACCREDITATION SUMMARY
48
Solid State and Photonics Lab (SSPL), many of whom hold joint appointments with the Applied
Physics Department, and the Space, Telecommunications, and Radio Science Lab (STARLab). The
number of faculty in each Lab and the courses typically taught by each Lab are summarized in the
following table.
Lab
CSL
Number Faculty
13
ICL
ISL
14
16
SSPL
10
STARLab
7
Courses
computer hardware (architecture)
and software
electronics, analog lab
core signal processing
and linear systems, Fourier techniques
probability and statistics
introduction to electronics, photonics,
quantum mechanics
fields and waves, wireless
Fourier transforms, linear systems
Consistent with ABET Criterion 5, there are generally sufficient faculty in each specialty area
to cover curricular and advising duties. Most undergraduates in the EE program have regular EE
faculty as their academic advisers. The exception is the Computer Hardware specialty sequence,
where we do not currently have sufficient regular faculty available to serve as undergraduate advisers. This problem should be improved with the probable addition of a new faculty member in this
area (Mitra) during 2005–2006. During this time the EE Department has called on lecturers and
Research Professors in the Computer Science Department to serve as EE undergraduate advisers
(supplemented by an “adviser at large” within the EE Department and the undergraduate advising
teaching assistant).
A second area of concern has been the controls specialty because there are currently no EE
professors active in the area and most of the courses are taught in the Aero Astro and Mechanical
Engineering Departments. Professor Gunter Niemeyer in ME now serves in the role of undergraduate adviser for the area and has been given a Courtesy Appointment in Electrical Engineering.
He participates in the EE Laboratory Committee and in the annual design award decisions.
EE faculty who primarily advise undergraduates include Dutton, Engler, Gill, Inan, KhuriYakub, Kovacs, Lee, McKeown, Nishimura, Olukotun, Pease, Tyler, and Wong. Professor J.
Harris is the adviser for the new Solid State and Photonic Devices specialty. Professors Pauly
and Kozyrakis are both taking on several undergraduates and receiving reduced graduate advising
assignments.
Professors who regularly teach undergraduate core and specialty courses include these professors
and Professors El Gamal, Goldsmith, Gray, Horowitz, Kahn, Leeson (Consulting Professor), Miller,
Plummer, Prabhakar, Shenoy, Vuckovic, and Zebker.
Almost all undergraduate fundamental courses in Electrical Engineering are taught by regular
tenure-line faculty. The primary exception are a few courses taught by the Computer Science
Department and cross-listed by EE such as the basic programming courses (CS 106 in particular).
These courses are taught either by a Professor (Teaching) or by lecturers as they are large service
courses taken by the majority of undergraduates.
Stanford faculty have an unusually high involvement with industry because of the historically
intimate connections between the University and Silicon Valley. Faculty regularly consult for local
companies, serve on Boards, and participate with startups during sabbaticals and other leaves.
The University tightly monitors faculty involvement with industry to avoid problems of conflict of
B.
ACCREDITATION SUMMARY
49
interest and total faculty time away from campus is strictly limited and monitored by the University.
Many faculty use industrial connections to fund their research via contracts and unrestricted gifts
to the university.
6.
Facilities
In summer 1999 the new David Packard Electrical Engineering Building was occupied by the EE
administration and two of five Laboratories making up the Department (ISL and STARLab). All
of the educational laboratories were also moved into the new building. For the first time in many
decades, the entire EE faculty is housed in close proximity with ISL and STARLab in Packard,
CSL in the Gates Computer Science Building, ICL in the Center for Integrated Systems, and SSPL
in the Ginzton Laboratory.
Most non-lab teaching continues to take place throughout the university, but the Packard building provides a home for the experimental portion of the EE program, the EE undergraduate seminar,
the administration, and over 1/3 of the faculty.
(a)
Instructional Laboratories
Facilities supporting instructional laboratories are excellent. The instructors and Lab Manager
(Mr. Keith Gaul) work with the Department to aggressively seek, acquire, and maintain state-ofthe-art equipment, including computers. Most of the workbenches were replaced by new custom
designed workbenches with the move into the new building.
The undergraduate laboratories all correspond to specific courses. These courses and their
resources are described in this section.
ENGR 40 Introductory Electronics and EE 41 Physics of Electrical Engineering Room
130/131, 945 sq. ft. The lab has 13 work stations with a Cadet Breadboard, V.O.M., Tektronix
2205 20 Mhz Scope, Wavetek Function Generator 4mhz, Multimeter (HP 34401A), Triple Output
P.S. (HP 6236B) per station.
EE 101 A and B, Circuits I and II Room 033/064, 868 sq. ft. The lab has 12 work stations with
a Cadet Breadboard, Agilent 4 channel 100 Mhz oscilloscope (54624A), Agilent 80 Mhz Waveform
Generator (33250A), 2 Agilent Multimeters (34401A), 2 Dual Output DC Power Supplies (E3648A),
Pentium IV 2.8 Ghz PC with Signal Express software. Additional equipment includes 4 Agilent
LCR meters (4263B), 4 Agilent 20 Mhz Waveform Generators (33220A) and an HP 4100 Laserjet
printer.
EE 108A Digital Design Laboratory Room 127, 632 sq. ft. The lab has 8 work stations with PC
Pentium IV, Cadet Bread Board, Xilinx FPGA board, Mixed Signal Scope (HP 54645D), function
Generator (HP 3312A), Fluke Digital Multimeter 8050A, Dual P.S. (HP 6353A) per station. HP
LaserJet Printer. Computers have Xlinix software.
EE 122 Analog Laboratory and EE 133 Analog Communications Design Laboratory
Room 053/054, 1188 sq. ft. The lab has 7 work stations with a Scope (100 Mhz HP 1740A), signal
analyzer (HP 3561A), spectrum analyzer (HP 8591E), triple output P.S. (HP 6236B), dual output
P.S. (HP 6253A), multimeter (HP 34401A), solder station (Weller WES 50), waveform generator
(HP 33120A), Infinium scope (500mhz HP), PC Pentium IV 3.1 Ghz, multifunction synthesizer
(HP 8904A), signal generator (HP 8647A) per station. Plus one each 1.5 Ghz spectrum analyzer
(HP ESA-L1500A), dynamic signal analyzer (HP 35665A), Tektronix type 575 Scope, HP 8000DN
LaserJet printer, LCR Meter (HP 4263A), HP Thinkjet, Tektronix 571 Curve Tracer. Computers
have B2 Spice software, LabView software.
B.
ACCREDITATION SUMMARY
50
EE 144 Wireless Electromagnetic Design Laboratory Room 005, 518 sq. ft. Lab has two
workbenches with all equipment, plus additional equipment for the projects. The equipment includes Spectrum Analyzers: HP141T display section, HP8555B, HP8554A, HP8552B plug-ins,
HP8445B tracking preselector, HP8444A tracking generator, FM radio, synthesized MFJ259B
HF impedance/SWR meters, HP8620 sweep oscillator mainframe with HP86240 2-8 GHz plugin, HP432 power meters with HP8478 power head, HP9494B/9495B 1 dB step attenuators, HP537
wavemeters, Slotted line coaxial and waveguide carriages with probes, 6, 10, 20 dB coaxial attenuators, Digital voltmeters, HP423 diode detectors, EIP 545A counters with power meter, Wavetek
910SP XY displays, Coaxial directional couplers, Matched load, short and mismatched loads, Double and triple stub tuners, Interdigital and comb-line filters, Waveguide to coaxial adapters, Waveguide directional couplers, Waveguide slide screw tuners, Dual crystal oscillator low-noise signal
generator, Power splitters, Time domain reflectometer: HP180C mainframe, HP1815, HP1106,
HP1817, HP 10 cm air line, Miscellaneous sweep generator plugins, waveguide and coaxial components, Antennas (dipole, loop, rectangular waveguide horn, circular polarized), Pentium IV computers, and an Anechoic antenna chamber (under construction). Available software (primarily used
for the design projects) includes Microsmith, a Smith Chart plotting program (ARRL), Puff, a microwave CAD program (Caltech), Radio Designer, a CAD program (ARRL), Yagi Optimizer (YO
7), a yagi antenna optimizing application (Beezley), Antenna Optimizer (AO 6),general antenna
optimizer (Beezley), NEC for Wires (NW 6), a NEC-2 application for the PC (Beezley), Terrain
Analyzer (TA 6), analyzer for antennas over ground (Beezley), and EZNEC, a NEC-2 application
for the PC (Lewallen).
EE 108B Advanced Logic Design Laboratory Room 129, 493 sq. ft. The lab has 8 work
stations with Pentium IV 3.1 Ghz PCs, triple output P.S. (HP 3236A), 100 Mhz scope (HP 54601B),
150 Mhz pulse generator (HP 8110A), function generator (HP 3311A), mixed signal scope 100 Mhz
(HP 54645D), arbitrary waveform generator (HP 3120A) per station.
The lab also has two Fluke multimeters and three logic analyzers (HP 1651A), a synthesized
function / sweep generator, Xilinx FPGA boards, an EPROM eraser, an Xeltek universal programmer, and an HP LaserJet printer 8100D. Computers have Xlinix software.
EE 275 Logic Design PC Cluster Room, 512 sq. ft. Has 14 PC Pentium IV 3.1 Ghz with Xlinix
Software. EE 108A and EE 108B share this cluster with EE 275.
EE 109 Digital Design Laboratory Room 052, 477 sq. ft. The lab has 2 Logic Analyzers
(HP 1650A), 2 Scopes 100 Mhz (HP 54601A), 3 Scopes 100 Mhz Phillips PM 3070, 5 Triple
Output P.S. (HP 6236A), 4 Multimeter (HP 34401A), 1 Function Generators (HP 3312A), 2 Logic
Analyzers (HP 1661A), 1 Spectrum Analyzer (HP 35800A), 1 Distortion Measurement Set Hp
339A, 8 Multimeters, 9 PC Pentium IV 3.0 Ghz.
(b)
Instructional Computing Infrastructure
The computing infrastructure for the undergraduate instructional laboratories and for independent
research by undergraduates is summarized in the following table.
B.
ACCREDITATION SUMMARY
Lab
EE 101A, B
EE 108B
EE 108A
EE 122/133
EE 275
EE 344
EE 144
EE 109
Qty
12
8
8
8
12
1
3
9
Operating System
Windows XP
Windows XP
Windows XP
Windows XP
Windows XP
Windows XP
Windows XP
Windows XP
51
Qty
Server
1
1
1
Windows 2003 Server
Windows 2003 Server
Windows 2003 Server
1
Windows 2003 Server
There are also two additional Windows NT servers supporting the classroom network.
In addition to the classroom computers there is a PC cluster available to EE undergraduates.
PC Cluster Room 051, 688 sq. ft. Cluster has 14 Pentium IV 3.6 Ghz PCs running Windows XP
with MatLab and B2 Spice software. This cluster is used primarily by EE 122/133, EE 112, and
EE 105. All PC’s Have Visual Studio.NET and MS Office XP.
7.
(a)
Institutional Support and Financial Resources
Budget process
The department receives a yearly allotment of funds for operating and teaching expenses from the
School of Engineering along with income from the Stanford Center for Professional Development
derived from the Stanford Instructional Television Network. These funds are applied to staff,
faculty, and teaching assistant salaries, to equipment and software purchase and maintenance for
the educational laboratories, and to computer acquisition and maintenance for the educational
laboratories, the front office, and the departmental mail and Web server. Financial policy and
decisions are the responsibility of the Department Chair, Professor Bruce Wooley, who seeks the
advice of the Department Executive Committee, the Assistant Chair, Sharon Gerlach, and the
Department Financial Officer, Tiiu Johnson.
Appendix II (Institutional Profile) contains specific information on the budgeting process for
the School of Engineering and its individual departments.
(b)
Institutional support and financial resources
Appendix I(A), Table 5, summarizes expenditures for support functions of the Electrical Engineering Department during the 2003-2007 period. This level of support coupled with that provided from
Instructional Television has been sufficient to meet the needs of the undergraduate curriculum.
(c)
Faculty professional development
The University does not have formal procedures for professional faculty development, but promotions and raises take all aspects of performance into account: teaching, advising, research, and
professional service. The target average faculty teaching load in the EE Department is one class
per quarter (excluding sabbaticals). Faculty are encouraged by the Department to devote adequate
time to their teaching and advising to ensure a strong academic program, and to maintain a high
quality, internationally recognized program of research to ensure state-of-the art knowledge in their
specialty. In recent years the Department has provided generous startup packages for new faculty
in order to provide time for them to establish a teaching and research program and to provide time
and funds for course development, creation, and revision.
B.
ACCREDITATION SUMMARY
52
Most faculty in the department are extremely active in a variety of technical, professional,
editorial, and leadership activities within their professional organizations, especially the IEEE, as
indicated in Section 5 and in Appendix I(C).
Many faculty use consulting, sabbatical, or leave time to participate in local industry, including
Silicon Valley startups (as has our current President John Hennessy.) The University and School
place tight limits on the amount of consulting (especially one day per week on average) and leaves
(a maximum of two years out of seven) in order to ensure sufficient time at Stanford for ordinary
academic duties.
8.
Teaching Assistants
The Department strives to be generous with teaching assistant support, particularly with core
undergraduate classes. It should be emphasized the teaching assistants generally do not teach, they
assist. The faculty are responsible for the bulk of the lecturing and the preparation and grading of
exams. Assistants may give an occasional lecture, but generally their role is to assist the instructor
by managing the homework, assisting with exam preparation and grading, consulting with students
during extensive office hours, and conducting problem and review sessions. Advanced teaching
assistants called Teaching Affiliates (formerly Teaching Fellows) often teach a second section of
courses to provide flexibility to the scheduling, but this is a small minority of the undergraduate
courses covered by the Department. The Department also funds graders for ordinary homework
grading, so the burden is not on the faculty or teaching assistants.
9.
Facilities and Equipment
The departmental facilities and equipment required to achieve undergraduate program objectives
comprise the contents of the educational laboratories and the department administrative office.
As described in Section 6, the educational labs are funded directly by the Department based on
requests from individual instructors or from the Educational Laboratory Committee comprising
all faculty lab instructors and the Lab Manager. Ordinary improvements and upgrades totalling
under $ 10,000/year are approved by the Vice Chair based on faculty recommendations. Larger
requests for major expenses are evaluated by the Chair with advice from the Vice Chair, the
Assistant Chair, and the Educational Laboratory Committee consisting of all instructors of lab
courses. Many upgrades, including most PCs, are donations from industry coordinated with the
instructors and the Educational Laboratory Manager.
10.
Support Personnel and Institutional Services
The support personnel include the EE Department Staff and the Administrative Assistants of
the individual faculty involved with the undergraduate program. The positions most relevant to
supporting the undergraduate program are the following.
• Academic Program Manager/Director of Student Services (reports to the Vice Chair) with
the assistance of a Student Services Specialist track student progress, assist with student
problems, provide academic program information, manage program assessment, manage the
TA recruiting, interviewing, assigning, and evaluation process, manage the EE honors program, manage the EE Research Experience for Undergraduate programs, and promote student
events including seminars and lunches.
B.
ACCREDITATION SUMMARY
53
• Systems and Network Manager (reports to the Vice Chair) who maintains the network in the
Packard EE building and assists the Instructional Lab Manager with the maintenance of the
lab workstations, PCs, and Macs.
• Instructional Labs Manager (reports to the Computer Systems and Networks Manager) who
directs maintenance of lab equipment, computers, and software with student and TA assistance. He also actively seeks industrial donations and maintains good relations with donors
and potential donors and he prepares annual proposals for cost sharing with the School of
Engineering for new equipment and software.
11.
Program Criteria
(a)
Breadth and depth
Consistent with Criterion 8 for Electrical Engineering programs, achieves both breadth and depth
across a range of engineering topics relevant to electrical engineering. Breadth is achieved by requiring a common core of fundamental classes of all students, including physics in electrical engineering
including electromagnetics (EE 41 or EE 141), basic circuit theory and analysis techniques (EE
101A,B), signal processing and linear systems with (EE 102A,B), and digital systems (EE 108A,B).
Depth is achieved by the requirement of a specialty sequence consisting of three or more courses
from an approved list of sequences in one of the five specialty areas. These include
Computer Hardware EE 109, CS 107, EE 217, EE 273, EE 282
Computer Software CS 107, CS 108, CS 194, EE 284 or CS 244A
Controls ENGR 105, ENGR 205, ENGR 206, ENGR 207A, ENGR 207B, ENGR 209A, EE 263
Circuits and Devices EE 116, EE 133, EE 212, EE 214, EE 215 EE 216
Fields and Waves EE 134, EE 141, EE 142, EE 144, EE 241, EE 246, EE 247, EE 252, EE 256
Signal Processing and Communication EE 133, EE 168, EE 179, EE 261, EE 263, (EE 264
or EE 265), EE 276, EE 278, EE 279
Solid State and Photonic Devices EE 116, EE 134, EE 136, EE 141, EE 216, EE 222, EE 223,
EE 228, EE 235, EE 268
The core sequence begins with little design content, but this increases through the electronics
and electronics circuits to a majority. Both the required analog and digital labs have substantial
design content, as do many of the specialty sequences. The design experience culminates in departmentally approved design class, and each specialty sequence contains at least one such class. It is
a departmental requirement that at least one approved design class be taken.
(b)
Probability and statistics
EE 178 or an equivalent course from another department is required of all EE majors. The course
treats basic probability and statistics with an emphasis on engineering applications.
(c)
Differential and integral calculus
Taught in the required courses Math 41, 42, either Math 51 and 52 or CME 100 and 104, and
either Math 53 or CME 102. Students competence in calculus is assessed throughout the electrical
engineering curriculum in the analysis and design of circuits and systems.
B.
(d)
ACCREDITATION SUMMARY
54
Basic sciences
The necessary background in physics is provided in the required courses Physics 41 and 43. Students
competence in physics is assessed primarily in the electronics and fields and waves portions of the
electrical engineering curriculum. In 2006-2007, Physics 45 (Light and Heat) will no longer be
required to allow undergraduates greater flexibility in their choice of Science courses.
(e)
Advanced mathematics
Linear algebra is taught in the required course Math 51 or CME 100 and continued, along with linear
differential equations, in Math 53 or CME 102. Discrete mathematics are taught in Introductory
Electronics (E 40), where Boolean algebra basics and Karnaugh maps are treated, and in digital
systems EE 108A, B, where additional Boolean algebra and number systems are treated.
(f )
Complex variables
Complex numbers and phasors are taught in EE 102A, and Fourier and Laplace transforms are
taught in EE 102A and 102B. This material is used throughout the EE curriculum.
12.
Cooperative Education Criteria
NA
13.
NA
General Advanced-Level Program