From: "rph" Subject: Summary of CEFUL: ABET Dear CE Faculty and CEFUL: ABET attenders, This afternoon, we had an excellent CEFUL on abet and the computer engineering program objectives. I have written up a summary of the meeting below (if you attended the meeting, and have corrections please let me know!), and would like to discuss it by e-mail and that the next faculty meeting. I would also like to thank all the students who attended this to make it possible. It was an exceedingly valuable experience, and will be a great help to our program. In the future, how a plan to have at least one CEFUL a year dedicated to the academic program, rather than to other topics, the during the next year you may see if you more as we prepare for abet review. Richard ------------------------------------------ CEFUL: ABET and Computer Engineering Objectives, 4/9/2002 Attending: Carol Atwood (undergraduate advising), Nathan Bahr (Bioinformatics major), Alexandra Cary (CE/Math major), Doug Coker (CS major), Joel Ferguson (Assoc Dean & CE Faculty), Dev Gopalkrishnan (CE major), Richard Hughey (CE chair), Eric Perlman (CE major, IEEE student branch president), Darrell Ross (CE major), Martine Schlag (SOE Graduate Coordinator & CE faculty), Aaron Tomb (CE/Philosophy Major). Topics: Richard Hughey presented an overview of EC 2000 as well as the draft computer engineering objectives created by the computer engineering faculty during Winter quarter. He also discussed the core exam, and how it is both checking the students and, perhaps more importantly, checking the delivery of the program. After this half-hour overview, we discussed the program in general and the points in turn. Objective 1. Ensure a balanced foundation in mathematics, science, and engineering design. The group questioned whether "balanced" was correct. It was pointed out that that the engineering design component was very strong, and that significantly less science was required than engineering design or mathematics. In terms of implementation, the mathematics and science requirements vary greatly in quality depending on instructor. The tackle a series 19A and 19B were regarded as consistent, but the following courses fluctuate in quality, including 23A, 23B, 27, and CE107. The possibility of adding more flexibility to the curriculum to allow the separate differential equations and linear algebra courses was thought to be an attractive solution, as the ratio between these come to components in 27 has been inconsistent. Students also commented on some inconsistency on the amount of differential equations in EE70. The recent change of 19A has a co-requisite for physics 5A was regarded as a further dilution of the physics curriculum. Physics is aware of some of these problems, and is adjusting its staffing of the course appropriately. SOE should pay closer attention to the physics curriculum. EE is considering changes to EE 70, in consultation with CE. CE is looking at the mathematics curriculum and CE 107. The suggested change is to replace "balanced" with "solid". CE will need to work within and the outside its program to attain "solid" in these three areas. Objective 2. Offer advanced study in computer hardware and software technology with a focus on innovative thinking and problem solving. It is suggested that this be split into two parts, because the second part (innovative thinking and problem solving) is such an important objective that it should not simply be "offered". It possible wording of this would be: 2a. Offer advanced study in computer hardware and software technology. 2b. Promote innovative thinking and problem solving. Objective 3. Prepare students for careers in industry and to pursue graduate study This was viewed as speaking to the constituencies of industry and graduate schools. Objective 4. Provide undergraduate research opportunities. This was viewed as an excellent objective. The program needs to do a better job of explaining how to get research positions, and the possibility of two-credit undergraduate seminars in research areas on the horizon was also mentioned. Objective 5. Cultivate a commitment to life-long learning and professional service. This is a weak objective. The primary intent among the faculty was encouraging local service (such as joining the IEEE), and during CEFUL, it was mentioned that being a reader or tutor is in a sense professional service, and that is also a tremendously valuable experience for an undergraduate. Objective 4 was considered too important to expand to include "research and teaching" opportunities. Instead, objective 5 could be changed to something like: Cultivate a commitment to the education of the community. Objective 6. Emphasize ethical issues in research and engineering. This was viewed as an excellent objective, but one that is not presently being done. The simple prosecution of academic integrity cases is not an emphasis on ethical issues. The 185 curriculum has at times included discussions of engineering ethics, but the amount to this coverage varies from course to course. The emphasis of this objective should be on discussing the ethical issues, rather than prescribing a specific ethical standards. One possibility would be to work with the philosophy department to create and engineering ethics course, and require that of our students (assuming that it also for filled a general education requirements). The chemistry course "Science and Human Values" was noted as being very helpful in these issues, though it is no longer offered. Bioinformatics has a required ethics course (Chemistry 80G, Bioethics). Objective 7. Maintain programmatic relevance by incorporating new ideas and technologies into our curriculum. It was remarked that the CE program is doing a good job of this at present, with new courses, curriculum revisions, and so forth. It is suggested that the wording become: Continue to improve the program by incorporating new ideas and technologies into the curriculum. Missing Objectives. The group felt that two other objectives were missing: one on teaching quality any other on inter-disciplinary flexibility. With respect to teaching quality, students wondered about about publicly-accessible teaching evaluations. At present, that would appear to violate personnel rules with respect to the official evaluations, but in the past a student organization has put together coarse evaluations. Another possibility would be to set up a chat room site for the SOE where courses, requirements, and different professors can be discussed among the students as they attempt to find the best courses. Another possibility would be for the IEEE or some other student organization to have a general curriculum discussion sessions at the start of every quarter. With respect to inter-disciplinary flexibility, students felt that it was very important to continue the large range of courses that can be applied to any major, and the ability to use courses in other school of engineering majors for the CE major. This is seen as particularly valuable for students may decide between majors after taking a number of courses. We did not come up with a suggested wording for these two issues, and may be possible to incorporate them into objective 7 or into objectives of their own. This will need further thought.