Contents
Cal Poly Pomona

P&R Responses for recommendation 46

Recommendation 46
Department Electrical and Computer Engineering
Consensus Opinion 31 out of 31 faculty/staff : Pro
Consensus Explanation ECE Department Response to Prioritization and Recovery Proposal
Approved by Department November 7, 2007

In response to proposal numbered: 46


1. All engineering programs must be accredited by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) to be viable.

Engineering Technology is accredited through the Technical Activities Board of ABET the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology while the other engineering programs are accredited through the Engineering Activities Board of ABET. The two types of programs are different.

It therefore makes sense to administer the engineering technology programs in one department.

2. Two of the most successful programs in Engineering Technology are the programs at Arizona State and Purdue. These engineering technology programs are separate from engineering.

3. The Electrical and Computer Engineering Department faculty for many years taught Electrical Engineering Technology Courses. We share the same labs and some of the present ETE faculty came from ECE.

We would be happy to do that again. However, merging ETE and ECE would be very confusing to students and make advising difficult.

ECE stands ready to work closely with ET but very strongly urges continuation of a separate ET Department.

4. ECE had the closest relationship with ET of all the engineering departments. From past history, other departments were not interested in ET and this has not changed. Attempting to merge other ET majors with engineering is likely to make them step children of little importance and they will be allowed to whither away.


Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 46
Department Engineering Technology
Consensus Opinion 8 out of 8 faculty/staff : NA
Consensus Explanation SUBJECT: RESPONSE PRIORETIZATION & RECOVERY COMMITTEE PHASE II RECOMMENDATIONS
ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY DEGREE PROGRAM
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING

Submitted by: Professor Fazal B. Kauser, P.E. Coordinator ET Degree Program

The P & R Committee’s recognition of the of Engineering Technology (ET) Degree Program’s uniqueness, provider of the professionals in the region and contributor to the
Cal Poly Pomona Mission is thankfully acknowledged. The response follows the same sequence in which the committee’s findings and recommendations were made.

1. The quality of the Program is lower than other comparable Programs in the College of Engineering is a direct consequence of the lack of full time faculty for past three years. Since the establishment of the P&R Committee in 2005, the ET Program has being run by one fully tenured faculty. In the same time period, the Program’s enrollment has grown sharply (over 175) and is continuing to grow. The TAC/ABET Visiting Team in 2005 also expressed concern over lack of full time faculty.

2. Over 25 per cent of the student population in the ET Program with a GPA lower than 2.2 is comprised of transfer students from Mechanical Engineering (ME) who are unable to meet the needs of ME Degree Curriculum.

3. All three Degree Programs in the Engineering Technology Department are “merged” in the sense that a number of Core Courses (Statics, Dynamics, Strength of Materials, Material Science and Fluid Mechanics I) are shared by the three degree programs (ET, ECET, and CET) in addition to common Mathematics and Physics courses. This aspect leads to considerable cost saving.

4. The ET program shares ALL laboratories with the Mechanical, Civil Engineering and Aerospace Engineering Departments which further contributes to significant cost savings. The P&R Committee’s recommendations that “Engineering Technology Program engage in discussion with mechanical or manufacturing engineering department about affinities and potential for merging to provide better management, recruiting, sharing resources, support and assurance of students success” is already being satisfied to its fullest.

5. The ME and Manufacturing Engineering Department (MFE) were approached independently to explore the possibility of merging with the ET program. ME and MFE departments discussed merging in depth. Faculty of both departments unanimously concluded that the current cooperation and sharing of resources among the Engineering and ET program is the maximum possible. Any further sharing or merging of the programs is not practical.

CONCLUSION
• The ET program is a unique and distinctly different program from either ME or MFE program and merging with either of the program is analogous to elimination of the program which has been serving industry for past 37 years.
• The ET program already shares significant number of courses within the ET department and ME and MFE departments minimizing duplication of laboratory resources and lecture courses.
• The Engineering Technology Degree Program meets the polytechnic mission of the university and supports learn-by-doing pedagogy.
• The enrollment of the ET program is expected to farther increase due to acute shortage of ET graduates.
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 46
Department Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering
Consensus Opinion 9 out of 9 faculty/staff : Con
Consensus Explanation Recommendation: ET General Merging with Manufacturing Engineering
a. The department as a whole felt that the process requires more time for communication and exploration of collaboration opportunities across the various programs on campus. We feel that the process is being rushed needlessly in a manner that will compromise the ability to obtain successful results from this process. Questions that seriously hinder our ability to recommend include but are not limited to: What is the demand for the different programs in the future? How would the resources for programs change?
b. ET program is different specifically with respect to the math requirements. Students already in the ET pipeline would need a new set of math courses (currently non-existing courses) to upgrade math skills and incorporate these students into the Manufacturing Engineering Degree. This, however, would be a very difficult task that we expect only a few students would be able to successfully accomplish. Since these students often gravitate to ET due to the more hands on approach and lower mathematical requirements we believe that merging ET General with Manufacturing Engineering would essentially remove a valid and viable opportunity for these students due to these real differences. Due to the difficulties for this transition and the elimination of valid engineering opportunities for some students we currently disagree with the proposed change. If a workable transition was developed for capable ET students, it would be possible to revisit the issue.
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 46
Department mechancical Engineering
Consensus Opinion 31 out of 31 faculty/staff : Con
Consensus Explanation The Mechanical Engineering Department (by the consensus opinion of 31 faculty/staff out of 31 with 2 part time instructors not voicing any opinion) disagrees with the P&R Committee on recommendation 46 for merging of the Engineering Technology Program with one of the Engineering programs. This program uniquely fits with the other two Technology programs in the Engineering Technology Department.

The curricula of the three technology programs share many classes; all have common math and physics course sequences, and take other common courses as well. The names of many of the ET courses sound similar to the Engineering programs classes; however, the classes and content are not the same! All three programs are accredited by the engineering and technology accreditation board, ABET, but by a different commission within ABET than the engineering programs. The ET program must satisfy a different set of review criteria than the engineering programs.

The Engineering Technology department has been in existence for 35 years. ET graduates satisfy different needs of industry than do engineering graduates. The three programs within the ET department share one department chair, one administrative assistant, and no laboratory technician. The department is larger than half of the departments in the College of Engineering, and the department is also relatively efficient. Part of their efficiency is due to the fact that ET utilizes many of the same laboratories as other Engineering programs and shares technician support with engineering departments. Because multiple programs already share laboratories, the University as a whole is more efficient and has better utilization of resources.

Currently the three programs within the ET department have better synergies than if the three programs were to merge with other engineering programs. Positioning the ET major in another department would not save money. If the ET program were merged into the ME Department, then the major would have to stay as a distinct major. Students, in the ET program, take math and physics sequences which are distinct from students in Mechanical Engineering (and all other engineering programs). Elimination of the ET major (program) would most likely mean the elimination of most of their students from the college of engineering as well (which is opposite to what the President said he wanted when the committee received their charge). This recommendation is not in the best interest of the students, the College, or the University, and has little or no financial benefit.
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendations not submitted through the forms are available in this folder. They mainly consist of Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat documents. If none were submitted for this recommendation, the folder will be empty.