EFC 2001-2002


Engineering Faculty Council
Academic year 2001 - 2002

EFC Meeting # 1
May 29, 2001
Minutes

1. The meeting was called to order by Professor Dasgupta at 1:05 in 4505 SC. Present: Professors Andersen, Arora, Chen, Dasgupta, and Swan. Guest: Dean Fischer

2. Professor Andersen was nominated as the EFC Secretary (Arora, Swan). Nominations were closed and Professor Andersen was elected unanimously.

3. Professor Arora was nominated as the EFC Chair (Dasgupta, Chen). Nominations were closed and Professor Arora was elected unanimously.

4. On behalf of the EFC, Professor Arora thanked the outgoing members of the EFC, Profs. Murhammer and Rodgers, for their hard work in previous years.

5. Proposed EFC agenda items for the 2001-2002 academic year were discussed. Potential items included:

EPS II format
Definition of General elective Courses
Chemistry
Physics
EASy Policy
Soft-core followup
Circuits – lab concerns
ABET
CSS
Teaching Committee – make EASy easy

6. Liaison assignments for the three EFC Committees were made as follows:

Curriculum Committee – Colby Swan
Teaching Committee – Soura Dasgupta
Promotion and Tenure Committee – J.S. Chen

Potential menberships for these committees was also discussed.

7. The EFC adjourned until Tuesday, June 5, 2001 in 4505 SC.

Respectfully submitted,
 

David R. Andersen, Secretary

EFC Meeting # 2
June 5, 2001
Minutes

1. The meeting was called to order by Professor Arora at 1:13 in 4505 SC. Present: Professors Andersen, Arora, and Dasgupta. Guest: Dean Fischer

2. The minutes of the May 29, 2001 meeting were amended and approved.

3. Professor Arora distributed a list of proposed charges for each of the EFC standing committees. The charges for each committee were discussed at length, and it was determined that they would be finalized at the first meeting of the Fall semester.

4. Memberships for each of the EFC standing committees was discussed. It was determined that these would also be finalized at the first meeting of the Fall semester.

5. The constitution of Dean Fischer’s EPS I and II committee was discussed. The EFC recommended that the membership be selected by Dean Fischer in consultation with DEO’s and by people who will have a high likelihood of teaching the course.

6. The EFC adjourned at 2:30 pm until the beginning of the Fall semester.

Respectfully submitted,
 

David R. Andersen, Secretary

EFC Meeting # 3
August 31, 2001
Minutes

1. The meeting was called to order by Professor Arora at 10:32 in 3210 SC. Present: Professors Andersen, Arora, Dasgupta, and Swan. Guests: Deans Butler and Fischer

2. The minutes of the June 5, 2001 meeting were amended and approved.

3. Professor Swan related the final membership of the Curriculum Committee. Keri Hornbuckle – Civil Engineering, Christoph Beckermann – Mechanical Engineering, Joon Park – Biomedical Engineering (with Joe Reinhardt filling his seat due to a sabbatical semester in Fall 2001), David Murhammer – Chemical and Biochemical Engineering, Steve Collins (Chair) – Electrical and Computer Engineering, and John Lee – Industrial Engineering.

4. Further discussion was held regarding the charges for the Curriculum Committee. Following this discussion, Professor Swan agreed to re-draft the proposed charges, incorporating the comments of the EFC members.

5. There was discussion about implementation and management of courses that will be common between the departments. New Core Curriculum Document does not have provision for these courses. Professor Arora will seek input from EAC on this issue.

6. Core Courses Development. Dean Fischer and David Andersen, in coordination with Steve Collins, will follow-up on the development and implementation of new Physics courses with the Chair of the Physics department. Development and implementation of the New Chemistry courses needs to be followed-up.

7. Professor Arora distributed copies of the documents entitled, “Policy and Procedure for Implementation of the College of Engineering Core Curriculum,” and, “Core Course Curriculum Policies and Procedures,” that describe current collegiate procedures for implementation and administration of the Core Curriculum. It was agreed that the College will continue to follow the procedures described in these documents for implementation and management of the new Core Curriculum, including the concepts of lead departments and Core Course coordinators. Following discussion of these procedures, Professors Andersen and Swan were asked to review and update these documents in light of the new Quality Assurance procedures that have been added to the College curriculum and the New Core Curriculum.

8. The draft report (v 2.1) of Dean Fischer’s EPS I Committee was briefly discussed. Dean Fischer was requested to provide EFC with the Charge to the Committee and a letter containing his own analysis of the report on EPS I options.

9. The EFC adjourned at 12:00 pm until 10:30 am on September 5, 2001 in 3210 SC.

Respectfully submitted,
 

David R. Andersen, Secretary

EFC Meeting # 4
September 5, 2001
Minutes

1. The meeting was called to order by Professor Arora at 10:45 in 3210 SC
Members present: Andersen, Arora, Dasgupta, and Swan.
Deans present: Butler and Fischer

2. Curriculum Committee charges were approved. A copy of the final version of the charges is attached to this set of minutes.

3. The minutes of the August 31, 2001 meeting were amended and approved.

4. Teaching Committee charges were approved. A copy of the final version of the charges is attached to this set of minutes.

5. Promotion and Tenure Committee charges were approved. A copy of the final version of the charges is attached to this set of minutes.

6. Dean Fischer summarized the draft final report of his EPS I committee. Following this summary, the EFC held a long discussion concerning the implementation plan for EPS I. The EFC requested that Dean Fischer work with the DEO’s to help identify instructors to teach the course. The EFC also decided to meet jointly with the EAC to discuss EPS I.

7. The EFC adjourned at 12:04 pm until 10:30 am on September 12, 2001 in 3210 SC.

Respectfully submitted,
 

David R. Andersen, Secretary

EFC charges to the 2001-2002 Curriculum Committee:
Committee Membership:
Steve Collins (chair), ECE, (01-04).
Christoph Beckermann, ME, (99-02)
Keri Hornbuckle, CEE, (01-03).
John Lee, IE, (00-03).
David Murhammer, CBE, (01-04).
Joon Park, BME, (01-04).
Joseph Reinhardt, BME, (in place of Joon Park, fall 2001).

1. Identify and execute the role of the Curriculum Committee in defending the core during the upcoming Fall 2002 ABET accreditation visit.
2. Appoint course coordinators for the new core courses in the CoE. Oversee implementation of the math, chemistry, and physics courses defined in the document The New Undergraduate Curriculum that was adopted by the College faculty in June 2001. For EPS I and EPS II, oversee the development of course materials and implementation. This should be done in coordination with the Associate Dean for Academic Programs.
Many of the remaining issues associated with the implementation of the core courses outside of the College pertain to resources, scheduling, and administration. The Curriculum Committee is therefore charged to work with the ADAP to ensure that the curriculum content of these courses remains consistent with the course descriptions in the document, The New Undergraduate Curriculum, as the implementation plans are developed. The committee should ensure that these courses are developed in a timely fashion to accommodate their initial offerings. Implementation plans1 for each of the following courses should be developed by the following target dates:
October 15th: Engineering Math I, Fundamentals of Chemistry I, and College Seminar
December 1st EPS I
February 15th: Engineering Math II, III, & IV, Physics I, Fundamentals of Chemistry II
April 15th: EPS II, Physics II, Engineering Fundamentals I, II, III.
3. Update the definition of GECs in the new curriculum, and develop a philosophy for the role they are to play. Update the list of acceptable courses.
4. Submit a brief interim report on activities and accomplishments of the Curriculum Committee by December 1, 2001, and a Final Report on activities and accomplishments by April 15, 2002.
5. Develop a list of proposed charges for the Curriculum Committee of AY 2002-2003.
___________

1For college core courses, implementation plans are intended to include detailed syllabi, texts, number of faculty FTEs, estimated TA allocations, number of lecture and project sections, etc. For core courses outside the college, implementation plans need only include detailed syllabi and texts.

Teaching Committee Charges and Membership

Members Term Expiring

Allen Bradley AY01-02
David Rethwisch (chair) AY01-02
Dong Chyung AY04-05

Charge 1: Monitor implementation of the Assessing the Classroom Environment (ACE) system for obtaining student perceptions of College of Engineering courses and instructors. As appropriate, report problems that arise and recommend needed changes in the ACE system and its implementation.

Charge 2: Evaluate the results of the pilot study conducted in Spring 2001, of the new Evaluation and Assessment SurveY (EASY) computer based system for ACE. Address issues associated with a computer-based system for instructor evaluation. Make appropriate recommendations to the faculty on using EASY based system for ACE.

Charge 3: Make recommendations on improving the format of EASY- ABET to make it more user friendly. Work with the Dean’s office to implement these improvements.

Charge 4: Collect and summarize appropriate information about how departments implement new College and University policy regarding observation by peers of classroom teaching during this year’s promotion and tenure review processes.

Charge 5: Organize and hold all-college seminars to assist the faculty in improving their teaching effectiveness.

Charge 6: Recommend to the Dean the College of Engineering’s nominee for the annual Collegiate Teaching Award.

Charge 7: Consider and develop if appropriate a policy on the separation of ABET assessment tools and instructor evaluation.

Charge 8: Provide an interim report to the EFC by December 1, 2001 and the final report by April 15, 2002.

Charge 9: Recommend specific charges for the 2001-2002 Teaching Committee.

Charges to the Promotion and Tenure Committee for 2001-2002

Membership
Term Expires
1. Frederick Stern, ME AY 2001-02
2. Andrew Kusiak, IE, Chair AY 2001-02
3. Tomas L. Casavant, ECE AY 2002-03

Standing Charge

The Promotion and Tenure Committee shall review procedures used in all decisions concerning faculty promotions, tenure, and new appointments in the college and make such recommendations to the Dean and the faculty as it deems necessary. The review shall monitor implementation of and compliance with written college and university policies for new appointments and promotion and tenure evaluations completed prior to the current academic year.

Specific Charges

1. Develop instruments for monitoring the procedures in tenure and promotion decision-making in CoE. Coordinate this development with the EAC. Finalize the memorandum proposed by P&T Committee in spring 2001 to be sent to CoE DEO by the beginning of Spring semester (Attachment 1).

2. Develop and recommend a protocol for discharging the P&T Committee's standing charge.

3. Recommend specific charges for the 2002-2003 P&T Committee.

Submit an interim report by December 1, 2001, and final report by April 15, 2002.

ATTACHMENT

Memorandum

To: CoE DEO

From: CoE P&T Committee

Date: Start Spring Semester

The P&T Committee requests that you report any departures or problems in implementing the Guidelines for Tenure and Promotion Decision-Making at The University of Iowa (http://www.uiowa.edu/~provost/docs/pandt97.htm) summarized below for the promotion decisions made in your department during the present academic year. We request that the report be submitted by mid term for consideration and inclusion in the Committee's academic year report.

Overview of Promotion Decision-making Procedure:

(Contact the Dean's Office for a copy of the chart.)

EFC Meeting # 5
September 12, 2001
Minutes

1. The meeting was called to order by Professor Arora at 10:43 in 3210 SC
Members present: Andersen, Arora, Dasgupta, and Swan.
Deans present: Butler and Fischer

2. The minutes of the September 5, 2001 meeting were amended and approved.

3. Dean Butler distributed a draft letter from Dean Fischer and himself regarding the implementation plan for EPS I. He then described the contents of this letter. Several key points included: 1) the faculty resources required to teach EPS I are less than or equal to Engineering I and 2) the project component of EPS I will be weighted 1.5 SH. Following his presentation, discussion was held regarding the plan, and several suggestions were made by the EFC to be incorporated into the document before it is formally distributed to the DEO's and the EFC.

4. Dean Fischer requested that the EFC establish a mechanism that would require the College faculty to use the EASy questionnaire to collect ACE data during the Fall 2001 semester. He indicated that he would like to use EASy in the Fall, and Web ACE in the Spring 2002 semester. The discussion following this request centered around the likelihood of encountering bugs and other problems in the implementation of Dean Fischer’s request. No action was taken by the EFC.

5. The EFC adjourned at 12:00 pm until their joint meeting with the EAC on September 19, 2001 in 3210 SC.

Respectfully submitted,
 

David R. Andersen, Secretary

EFC Meeting # 6
September 19, 2001
Minutes

1. The meeting was called to order by Professor Arora at 10:41 in 3210 SC
Members present: Andersen, Arora, Dasgupta, and Swan.
Deans present: Butler and Fischer

2. The minutes of the September 12, 2001 meeting were approved as distributed.

3. The EFC received a proposal for a revised Course Assessment Report (CAR) from Prof. Marshall of ME. The proposal was developed in order to eliminate the possibility for confusion between student assessment techniques and course assessment techniques. The proposal was forwarded to the Curriculum Committee with a request that they implement this change, as well as add a date-stamp to the CAR by the end of the Fall 2001 semester.

4. Discussion was held concerning the various comments that EFC received from EAC during their joint meeting earlier today. The EFC decided to establish an EPS I course development group, comprised of likely instructors during the first running of the course in Fall 2002, based on nominations from the DEO’s. The purpose of this group will be to develop an implementation plan, including a lecture syllabus and project descriptions, for the first running of the course. A detailed charge to this group will be developed by the EFC at their next meeting.

5. The EFC adjourned at 12:15 pm until 10:30 am on September 26, 2001 in 3210 SC.

Respectfully submitted,
 

David R. Andersen, Secretary

EFC Meeting # 7
September 26, 2001
Minutes

1. The meeting was called to order by Professor Arora at 10:43 in 3210 SC
Members present: Andersen, Arora, Dasgupta, and Swan.
Deans present: Butler and Fischer

2. Professor Arora distributed a list of proposed charges for the EPS I course development team. After lengthy discussion on these charges, it was determined that the EFC would complete its discussion via electronic mail and finalize the charges prior to next week’s meeting.

3. Dean Butler gave some background on the pending search for the Associate Dean’s position that opened up when Dean Odgaard resigned to return to the faculty. He mentioned that he was rethinking the job description for the position. He said that the revised job description would not have any responsibilities related to the new building and would be primarily focused on graduate programs and research. Following his revision of the job description, Dean Butler said that he will seek input from the faculty on nominees for the position.

4. Dean Butler described the current situation with respect to the College budget. He noted that a reversion of 21.9 million dollars University-wide. He said that he felt there were two problems to focus on: 1) dealing with this year’s reversion issues, and 2) developing a long term outlook on how the College should respond to the budgetary situation. He asked for ideas on how to respond to both of these items, and indicated he would have a more detailed budget picture for the EFC next week.

5. Based on the list of names provided by the DEO’s to Prof. Arora, EFC selected the EPS I development team.

6. The EFC adjourned at 12:05 pm until 10:30 am on October 3, 2001 in 3210 SC.

Respectfully submitted,
 

David R. Andersen, Secretary

EFC Meeting # 8
October 3, 2001
Minutes

1. The meeting was called to order by Professor Arora at 10:41 in 3210 SC
Members present: Abdel-Malek, Andersen, Arora, Dasgupta, and Swan.
Deans present: Butler and Fischer

2. Professor Karim Abdel-Malek was welcomed by the EFC as their newest member.

3. The minutes of the September 19, 2001 meeting were amended and approved.

4. The minutes of the September 26, 2001 meeting were amended and approved.

5. Dean Butler gave the EFC an update on the College’s budget situation. He indicated that he wants the EFC to develop a mechanism for his interacting with faculty on this issue. A College faculty meeting or brown-bag lunch meeting were two options mentioned, but the EFC decided to devote time at next week’s meeting to working on this request.

6. Dean Butler announced that a regular 3-year review of the BME DEO will be performed this year, as per College policy. The EFC will be responsible for organizing the FPOA process. The review will be completed as soon as possible.

7. Further discussion of the EPS I Development Team charges and the EPS I ad-hoc committee’s report was held. Following this discussion, the Development Team’s charges were approved. A copy of the charges as finalized is attached to these minutes.

8. The membership of the EPS I Development Team was finalized. The membership will include: Richard L. Valentine, CEE (Chair); Gene F. Parkin, CEE; James W. Stoner, CEE; David Wilder, BME; David Rethwisch, CBE; Ralph Stephens, MIE; and David Andersen, ECE. One additional position on the Team is reserved for Industrial Engineering when they nominate a candidate.

9. Dean Fischer asked if the EFC was interested in modifying the College policy regarding the Pass/Not Pass option for undergraduate students. Currently, students are limited to taking a maximum of two of certain classes of courses Pass/No Pass. Discussion was held regarding whether a change in this limit was appropriate. Further action on this matter will await a specific proposal from the ADAP.

10. The EFC adjourned at 12:10 pm until 10:30 am on October 10, 2001 in 3210 SC.

Respectfully submitted,
 

David R. Andersen, Secretary

CHARGES by EFC TO
EPS I COURSE DEVELOPMENT TEAM
(10/3/01)

The course description is attached that was approved in June 2001 by the College faculty as a part of the motion on new curriculum. An implementation plan described in the memo of 13 September 2001 from Dean's office to the Engineering Faculty Council is also attached. The memo defines the resources available and suggests a format for the course. As described in the memo, the lecture part is equivalent to 2 s.h. and project/case study part is equivalent to 1 s.h. during the first 11 weeks. After 11 weeks, lecture part is 0 s.h., and project/case study is 3 s.h. All responses to the following charges should be achievable within the resource constraints and the suggested format. The responses must also respect the need to define topics that do not overload incoming freshman with little knowledge of engineering. Other issues to be considered are: student retention, equity of student workload across project/case study sections, faculty workload and contact hours, and TA workload. The charges and some guidelines for their response are as follows:
Charge 1. Develop learning objectives consistent with the course goals listed in the course description.
Charge 2. Describe problem-solving topics for lectures and develop lecture material appropriate for equivalent 1.5 s.h. credit and faculty contact to meet the course learning objectives.

  1. Incorporate problem-solving tools in the lecture material (e.g., a spreadsheet) to assist students in their projects/case studies part of the course.
  2. There should be close coordination between the lectures and projects/case studies materials both in their development and delivery.

Charge 3. Develop a general plan for each faculty led project/case study section equivalent to 1.5 s.h. credit and faculty contact. Develop project/case study material for the first offering of the course appropriate to students’ level of knowledge for each section consistent with the course goals and learning objectives. This material should be integrated with and reinforce the lecture material and the learning objectives. This could be achieved through a project/case study for the entire semester or several of them staggered throughout the semester. Provide handouts to be given to the students during the first offering of the course. Develop a short description (no more than half a page) of each project/case study for use at the time of freshman orientation during Summer 2002.

  • The project/case study section must be lead by a faculty assigned to teach the class. The average class contact time should be at least 1.5 hours/week.
  • The projects/case studies may be developed by the faculty to teach a section in consultation with the departmental faculty.
  • Since it is possible that students of a declared major may be assigned to a section led by the faculty from another program, these activities should be such that they provide meaningful experience regardless of the student’s major.
  • The projects/case study material should be designed in such a way that there is no penalty if a student switches from one program to another later on. This also implies that the courses required later in the program curricula should not assume any knowledge associated with the specific topics and tools covered in a project/case study section.

Charge 4. Develop an overall plan of coordination, implementation and management of the course.

  • Include general guidelines and philosophy aimed at continuously updating and enhancing the course so as to make it both valuable and sustainable while adhering to good pedagogy.

Charge 5. Develop a one-page Course Description containing the Catalog Description, Textbook, Goals, Learning Objectives, Tools Used, etc.
Charge 6. Develop a Course Outcomes Worksheet (COW).
Submit an interim report to the College Curriculum Committee by November 15, 2001 and the final report by March 15, 2002.

******Please contact the Dean's Office for the edited version of EPS I description******

EFC Meeting # 9
October 10, 2001
Minutes

1. The meeting was called to order by Professor Arora at 10:36 in 3210 SC
Members present: Abdel-Malek, Andersen, Arora, Dasgupta, and Swan.
Deans present: Butler and Fischer

2. Dean Butler explained the budget situation for the College of Engineering as he currently understands it. He explained that just prior to the current fiscal year the College had to revert $400,000 in state funds, and that the amount of the reversion expected in this current round of cuts would be slightly greater than this amount. He expects both sets of cuts to be permanent, and not limited to the 2001-2002 fiscal year.

3. The EFC decided to have a joint meeting next week with EAC to discuss the budget situation in more detail as facts become available.

4. In response to a request from Dean Butler, next week the EFC will set up one or more meetings for College of Engineering faculty and staff to provide input to the Dean for his use in making budgeting decisions.

5. The EFC adjourned at 12:00 pm until 10:30 am on October 17, 2001 in 3210 SC.

Respectfully submitted,
 

David R. Andersen, Secretary

EFC Meeting # 10
October 17, 2001
Minutes

1. The meeting was called to order by Professor Arora at 10:35 in 3210 SC
Members present: Andersen, Arora, and Swan.
Dean present: Butler

2. The minutes of the October 10, 2001 meeting were approved as distributed.

3. Prof. Arora provided an update on the review process for BME’s DEO. According to College policy, the EFC is required to facilitate the process. A Departmental Committee will conduct interviews, do the FPOA, etc., and provide a report to the EFC Chair. The EFC Chair will then give the results to the DEO and faculty. This process should be complete by the end of November. The Departmental review committee is in the process of being formed.

4. Prof. Arora noted that Industrial Engineering has contributed Prof. Bricker as a member of the EPS I Development Team.

5. A letter was received from Prof. Valentine regarding concerns he had as EPS I core-course coordinator and chair of the EPS I Development Team. There were four primary points in the letter: 1) he felt that with the implementation and teaching responsibilities associated with his positions, he should get credit for two courses; 2) he expressed his interest in receiving favorable consideration for participation in the NTITLE program; 3) he felt that EPS I teaching should count double for all faculty involved for the first two year; and 4) he recommended that a completely new set of faculty teach the course in the second year, in order to address the sustainability issues associated with the course. After discussion, Prof. Arora agreed to draft a letter responding to Prof. Valentine’s concerns. It was emphasized that EPS I should be treated and developed as any other core course having 3 s.h. of content and faculty effort.

6. Prof. Swan distributed a draft revision of the Core Course Responsibilities document. After some discussion, the EFC decided to refer this document to the Curriculum Committee for their consideration and adoption.

7. The EFC adjourned at 12:03 pm until 10:30 am on October 24, 2001 in 3210 SC.

Respectfully submitted,
 

David R. Andersen, Secretary

EFC Meeting # 11
October 24, 2001
Minutes

1. The meeting was called to order by Professor Arora at 10:32 in 3210 SC
Members present: Abdel-Malek, Andersen, Arora, Dasgupta, and Swan.
Deans present: Holly, Odgaard
Visitors present: Hogarty

2. The minutes of the October 17, 2001 meeting were amended and approved.

3. Dean Holly updated the EFC regarding the College’s situation with respect to ABET and the new curriculum. He noted that the collegiate ABET working group has developed a firm schedule for both the Dean’s office and programs to follow in developing their ABET materials. He also indicated that the College core ABET process was going well (with a few minor hiccups).

Dean Holly indicated that the new curriculum will be implemented beginning in Fall 2002 per the faculty vote. He also noted that the deadline for booking rooms for the next academic year is Nov. 20. Regarding external courses – he said that Math and Physics appear to be on track, but there are problems with the new curriculum’s proposed Chemistry courses. According to Dean Holly, CBE has indicated that they are willing to teach the College’s own Chemistry classes for a year or two if need be.

4. Dean Odgaard and Carrie Hogarty presented the current state of the electronic FAS development project. The EFC made several suggestions for modification of the proposed FAS outline, including:

  • add a section for accepted papers
  • add a section for submitted papers
  • move rigorously-reviewed conference papers to its own section
  • add a comments section
  • modify the non-society activities section

Following the discussion, Dean Odgaard and Ms. Hogarty agreed to bring a revised outline back to the EFC for further discussion next week. The EFC noted that wide-ranging faculty consultation will be needed before implementing the electronic FAS.

5. The EFC adjourned at 12:00 pm until 10:30 am on October 31, 2001 in 3210 SC.

Respectfully submitted,
 

David R. Andersen, Secretary

EFC Meeting # 12
October 31, 2001
Minutes

1. The meeting was called to order by Professor Arora at 10:32 in 3210 SC
Members present: Abdel-Malek, Andersen, Arora, Dasgupta, and Swan
Visitors present: Hogarty

2. The minutes of the October 24, 2001 meeting were amended and approved.

3. Ms. Hogarty presented some of the modifications to the proposed electronic FAS that had been made since last week’s EFC discussion. However, she noted that Section 7 of the FAS would not be discussed until Dean Odgaard was able to attend another EFC meeting.

Discussion by the EFC followed. Various concerns were expressed regarding the electronic FAS. During the old-new transition period, it is not clear who will do the data entry to convert the existing FAS into the new electronic FAS. It was emphasized that the number of required fields in all sections should be minimized in order to make the document more flexible. The fields under Section 3.2, Non-Society Activities, were discussed at length. The EFC re-emphasized that, at a minimum, wide-ranging faculty consultation will be required before the electronic FAS is implemented. The question of whether implementation of this project will require a faculty vote was discussed, because several on the EFC felt that this project represents a change in the philosophy of the FAS. No decision was made on this question at this time.

4. The EFC discussed material received from Dean Fischer regarding a Technical Communications course 59:004 that he has developed in consultation with staff from the Center for Technical Communications (CTC). The EFC has just recently been advised that this course has been developed and will be offered in the Spring 2002 semester. The EFC is deeply concerned that this course bypassed the normal collegiate course development procedures. Also there is concern regarding how this course will be integrated into the (new or old) curriculum so that students who take the course can receive credit for it toward their engineering degrees.

In light of the fact that the EFC believes a Technical Communications course is an excellent idea but is deeply concerned by the manner in which this course was developed and implemented, Profs. Arora and Abdel-Malek agreed to draft a memo to the Dean’s office expressing the concerns of the EFC.

5. Professor Arora announced that Prof. Hornbuckle from CEE had agreed to join the EPS I Development Team. With the appointment of Prof. Hornbuckle, the membership of the Team is complete.

6. The EFC adjourned at 12:00 pm until 10:30 am on November 7, 2001 in 3210 SC.

Respectfully submitted,
 

David R. Andersen, Secretary

EFC Meeting # 13
November 7, 2001
Minutes

1. The meeting was called to order by Professor Arora at 10:55 in 3210 SC
Members present: Abdel-Malek, Andersen, Arora, and Swan
Deans present: Butler, Odgaard
Visitors present: Hogarty, Schiele

2. The minutes of the October 31, 2001 meeting were approved as distributed.

3. Dean Butler presented material on the current College budget situation. Recent required reversions of College of Engineering state funds include: $400,000 last July and $213,000 recently – this most recent reversion in response to the Governor’s 4.3% across-the-board budget cut. Dean Butler also noted that the central administration has asked the College to plan for a $500,000 cut that may or may not be required July 1, 2002.

4. Dean Odgaard and Ms. Hogarty presented their work on the electronic FAS section 7. The EFC reaffirmed their suggestions regarding the organization of section 7 made during the EFC meeting of October 24. The Dean’s office staff will enter a few FAS’s into the electronic database on a trial basis to determine whether staff entry of ab-initio data is feasible, or whether it will be necessary for individual faculty to enter this data. In any case, careful review of the data will be required from each faculty member.

5. The EFC adjourned at 12:30 pm until 10:30 am on November 14, 2001 in 3210 SC.

Respectfully submitted,
 

David R. Andersen, Secretary

EFC Meeting # 14
November 14, 2001
Minutes

1. The meeting was called to order by Professor Arora at 10:35 in 3210 SC
Members present: Abdel-Malek, Andersen, Arora, Dasgupta, and Swan
Deans present: Butler, Holly
Visitor present: Collins

2. The minutes of the November 7, 2001 meeting were approved as distributed.

3. Prof. Arora brought the EFC up to date on progress with the regular BME DEO review process. The EFC then finalized the appointment of the 3-member DEO Review Committee, comprised of Profs. Dove, Mackey, and Reinhardt.

4. Discussion was held regarding the 59:004 Technical Communications course that is to be offered in the Spring 2002 semester. Dean Butler proposed four options to deal with the course. The EFC decided that the course should be left as a 59:004 course for the Spring semester, and that they would consider developing procedures for the implementation of non-core courses by the College (rather than a program) at a point in the near future. Dean Butler agreed to write a memo to the DEO’s explaining the status of this course for the Spring 2002 semester.

5. Prof. Steve Collins, chair of the College Curriculum Committee, presented a list of items for EFC’s consideration regarding the implementation of the new curriculum. The list included:

  • format of the math courses
  • revisions to Chemistry I
  • revisions to Chemistry II
  • implementation details for EPS I
  • revisions to the Physics sequence
  • pre- and co-requisites for math courses
  • a request to permit a 4-hr departmental selection in the 3rd semester

6. The EFC adjourned at 12:30 pm until 10:30 am on November 28, 2001 in 3210 SC.

Respectfully submitted,
 

David R. Andersen, Secretary

EFC Meeting # 15
November 28, 2001
Minutes

1. The meeting was called to order by Professor Arora at 10:36 in 3210 SC
Members present: Abdel-Malek, Andersen, Arora, Dasgupta, and Swan
Dean present: Holly
Visitor present: Collins

2. The minutes of the November 14, 2001 meeting were amended and approved.

3. Professor Collins lead a discussion concerning what curriculum-related items should be placed on the agenda for the College of Engineering faculty meeting scheduled for Dec. 17. Following the discussion, the EFC determined that it would be more appropriate to have an early spring faculty meeting for action on these curriculum-related items, and that discussion at the December meeting should be informational in nature.

4. Prof. Collins also indicated that the Curriculum Committee was working on the following items:

  • EPS I section options – it has recently been determined by the Dean’s Office that it is not possible to assign students to EPS I sections based on their major, but instead they will be randomly assigned. There are two potential options available to respond to this new constraint: 1) open sufficient program-specific sections to meet student demand, and 2) make all sections equivalent.
  • A proposal by BME to modify the new Core Curriculum to permit a 4-hour Departmental selection in the 3rd semester.

Prof. Collins indicated that the Curriculum Committee was interested in guidance on what should be done with the EPS I sections. After some discussion, the EFC determined that the second option utilizing equivalent sections was preferable.

5. Dean Holly brought the EFC up to date on the progress regarding the implementation of the new Physics core course sequence. He indicated that a spirited discussion was ongoing between the College of Engineering and the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences together with the Department of Physics and Astronomy concerning the form that these courses would take and who would teach them. In response to a question, he indicated that in his opinion if the Physics sequence is modified so that it will be taught by Engineering faculty rather than Physics and Astronomy faculty, this revision would require approval by the College of Engineering faculty.

6. Discussion was held regarding a draft set of principles the EFC is developing to guide the College of Engineering in future budget-cutting decisions.

7. The EFC adjourned at 12:25 pm until 10:30 am on December 5, 2001 in 3210 SC.

Respectfully submitted,
 

David R. Andersen, Secretary

EFC Meeting # 16
December 5, 2001
Minutes

1. The meeting was called to order by Professor Arora at 10:34 in 3210 SC
Members present: Abdel-Malek, Andersen, Arora, and Swan
Dean present: Butler

2. The minutes of the November 28, 2001 meeting were amended and approved.

3. The agenda for the December 17, 2001 Engineering Faculty meeting was discussed. The EFC decided to have Professor Steve Collins, as chair of the Curriculum Committee, update the faculty on the implementation of the new curriculum. This item was added to the template under Old Business.

4. Lead Departments were discussed and assignments made for the following new core courses:

Circuits – ECE
Thermodynamics – MIE
Statics – CEE

BME had expressed interest in serving as the Lead Department for Statics. The EFC’s discussion on this issue centered mainly on the following points:

  • CEE currently teaches about 3 out of the 4 offerings of Statics every year.
  • Prof. Nixon serves as the coordinator for the current Statics course, and is a faculty member in CEE. He has expressed a definite interest in continuing on as coordinator, and is perceived as having done a good job with the course.
  • At this point in time, CEE is a fairly large faculty group with a somewhat small enrollment. Given this current state, it makes more sense from an available faculty resources perspective for CEE to serve more heavily at the core level.
  • Since there is a natural association between CEE and "Structures,” having CEE remain as Lead Department could be beneficial in the upcoming ABET review.

Additionally, Dean Butler pointed out that resources are not allocated based on the Lead Department for a particular core course, but rather are allocated based on the assigned teaching responsibilities.

5. A charge was made to the Curriculum Committee to revise the Charges to Lead Departments document and incorporate these changes into the core policy document that they are working on.

6. A letter thanking Dean Fischer’s EPS I summer committee for their work with EPS I last summer was distributed and approved. Prof. Arora will send the letter on behalf of the EFC.

7. An extension of Prof. Reinhardt’s term on the Curriculum Committee was made through May 2002.

8. The EFC adjourned at 11:07 am until 10:30 am on December 12, 2001 in 3210 SC.

Respectfully submitted,
 

David R. Andersen, Secretary

EFC Meeting # 17
December 12, 2001
Minutes

1. The meeting was called to order by Professor Arora at 10:35 in 3210 SC
Members present: Abdel-Malek, Andersen, Arora, Dasgupta, and Swan
Deans present: Butler, Holly

2. The minutes of the December 5, 2001 meeting were amended and approved.

3. The EFC received a proposal from the Curriculum Committee on December 7 regarding the proposed math sequence for the new curriculum. The proposal stated that “[t]he Curriculum Committee proposes to explore the feasibility of replacing Math I and Math II with a two-semester calculus sequence that incorporates the use of technology and the core concepts and removing Math II (Calculus of Multiple Variables) from the core and letting every program decide whether or not to take the course.” The EFC approved the following language in response to the proposal: “The Curriculum Committee is to continue their work with the math sequence and report to the EFC by January 15 or sooner.”

4. The EFC also approved in principle the concept that EPS I project sections should be implemented as equivalent realizations of the same course. This change is necessary in light of changes in the method of allocation of students to sections. Currently, there is no way to assign students their choice of section based on interest. The EFC also asked Professor Collins to forward copies of letters he has received from some of the DEOs concerning EPS I project sections to the EPS I Development Team.

5. Communications received from Prof. Chandran regarding the Lead Department for Statics were discussed. The EFC asked Professor Arora to draft a response to Professor Chandran outlining the EFC’s position.

6. The following set of College budget principles was drafted by the EFC to guide the Dean and the College through future budget reductions required by changes in the state support for the College.

  • Protection of the Academic Mission and its quality should be the highest priority
      o Quality of student educational programs should be maintained
      o Course delivery should not be affected
      o Support for research and graduate programs should not be affected
      o Normal teaching load in the College should not be affected
      o Faculty salaries should be cut only if mandated by the University
      o Compulsory faculty salary release should not be adopted
  • Budget reduction should be handled at the College level in consultation with the EAC and EFC
  • Selective hiring to meet Academic Mission and ABET accreditation needs should be continued

7. The EFC agreed to continue budget discussions at their meeting next week.

8. The EFC adjourned at 12:00 am until 10:30 am on December 19, 2001 in 3210 SC.

Respectfully submitted,
 

David R. Andersen, Secretary

EFC Meeting # 18
December 19, 2001
Minutes

1. The meeting was called to order by Professor Arora at 10:36 in 3210 SC
Members present: Andersen, Arora, Dasgupta, and Swan
Deans present: Butler, Holly

2. The minutes of the December 12, 2001 meeting were approved as distributed.

3. Dean Butler summarized the report of the Dean’s Graduate Programs Development Committee presented earlier today to the EAC. As part of his summary, he recommended that an ad-hoc committee be asked to develop a general charge appropriate for a fourth EFC standing committee on Graduate Programs and Research. The EFC concurred with the Dean that this Committee should explore development of a standing Graduate Programs and Research Committee, and report to the EFC with its recommendations.

4. A brief discussion on the Core Curriculum development was held. Dean Holly reported that the Curriculum Committee seems to be converging to a solution on all outstanding problems except Mathematics and a meeting on the Math sequence with Mathematics faculty is scheduled for shortly after the first of the year.

5. Dean Butler consulted the EFC on the membership of the Dean’s Advisory Promotion and Tenure Committee. Dean Butler also indicated that he would report on the membership of this Committee to the faculty by memo once he has contacted the members who were discussed, as required by College policy.

6. The EFC adjourned at 11:27 am until 3:30 pm on January 23, 2002 in 3210 SC.

Respectfully submitted,
 

David R. Andersen, Secretary

EFC Meeting # 19
January 23, 2002
Minutes

1. The meeting was called to order by Professor Arora at 3:38pm in 3210 SC
Members present: Andersen, Arora, Dasgupta, and Swan
Dean present: Butler

2. The minutes of the December 19, 2001 meeting were amended and approved.

3. The agenda for the Spring 2002 semester was discussed. The following were identified as a non-exhaustive list of items to be discussed and acted upon this semester:

ABET
Budget
Graduate Education
Election of members
Curriculum Committee recommendations
Faculty meeting agenda – Feb. 19
GEC policy

4. Dean Butler brought the EFC up-to-date on the current budget situation facing the College of Engineering.

5. The EFC adjourned at 5:23pm until 8:30 am on January 28, 2002 in 3501 SC.

Respectfully submitted,
 

David R. Andersen, Secretary

EFC Meeting # 20
January 28, 2002
Minutes

1. The meeting was called to order by Professor Arora at 3:38pm in 3210 SC
Members present: Abdel-Malek, Andersen, Arora, Dasgupta, and Swan
Deans present: Butler, Holly
Visitor present: Collins

2. Professor Collins presented a series of recommendations from the College Curriculum Committee for the EFC to adopt for consideration by the College of Engineering faculty at its meeting of February 19, 2002.

  • Fundamentals of Chemistry I – The CC recommended that 4:01x Fundamentals of Chemistry I be changed to a 3 s.h. lecture course and that a 1 s.h. case study/laboratory course 4:01xL Fundamentals of Chemistry I Lab be added to the common core curriculum in the first semester. Each of these two companion courses would list the other course as a co-requisite and would be integrated to the extent that if a student fails to take the lab course they can be expected to be at a disadvantage in taking the final exam for the lecture course.
    It was MOVED (Andersen, Dasgupta) to adopt the Curriculum Committee’s recommendation on Chemistry I. The motion PASSED without dissent.
  • Rhetoric Co-requisite – The CC recommended that 59:005 Engineering Problem Solving I be dropped as a co-requisite for 10:003 Accelerated Rhetoric.

It was MOVED (Dasgupta, Swan) to adopt the Curriculum Committee’s recommendation on Rhetoric. The motion PASSED without dissent.

  • Engineering Physics I – The CC recommended that 29:081 Engineering Physics I be replaced in the common core curriculum with 29:017 Introductory Physics I.

It was MOVED (Arora, Andersen) to adopt the Curriculum Committee’s recommendation on Engineering Physics I. The motion PASSED without dissent.

  • Engineering Math III Pre-requisite – The CC recommended that the format of 22M031 Engineering Math I be dropped as a pre-requisite for 22M:033 Engineering Math III.

It was MOVED (Dasgupta, Swan) to adopt the Curriculum Committee’s recommendation on Engineering Math III pre-requisite. The motion PASSED without dissent.

  • Fundamentals of Chemistry II – The CC recommended that a 1 s.h. case study/laboratory course 4:01yL Fundamentals of Chemistry II Lab be added to the common core curriculum in the second semester as a companion to 4:01y Fundamentals of Chemistry II. Each of these courses would list the other as a co-requisite and would be integrated to the extent that if a student fails to take the lab course they can be expected to be at a disadvantage in taking the final exam for the lecture course.

It was MOVED (Andersen, Dasgupta) to adopt the Curriculum Committee’s recommendation on Fundamentals of Chemistry II. The motion PASSED without dissent.

  • Math II as a pre- or co-requisite for Statics, Thermo, Circuits, and Physics II – The CC recommended that 22M:032 be eliminated as a pre-requisite for 59:007 Engineering Fundamentals I – Statics and replaced with 22M:031, be eliminated as a co-requisite for Engineering Fundamentals II – Electrical Circuits, and be eliminated as a co-requisite for 29:082 Engineering Physics II and replaced with a pre-requisite of 22M:031.

It was MOVED ( Abdel-Malek, Dasgupta) to adopt the Curriculum Committee’s recommendation on Math II pre- and co-requisites. The motion PASSED without dissent.

  • Engineering Physics II – The CC recommended that 29:082 Engineering Physics II – Electricity and Magnetism be changed to a 3 s.h. lecture course and that an optional 1 s.h. laboratory course 29:082L Engineering Physics II Lab be added to the common core curriculum in the third semester. The laboratory course would list the lecture course as a co-requisite. 20:082 would be taught and students evaluated in a way that does not penalize students who do not take the companion lab course.

It was MOVED (Andersen, Dasgupta) to adopt the Curriculum Committee’s recommendation on Engineering Physics II. The motion PASSED without dissent.

  • Engineering Fundamentals III – Thermodynamics – The CC recommended that the format of 59:009 Engineering Fundamentals III – Thermodynamics be changed to eliminate the discussion section and the content be revised as described in the attached course description to eliminate material on combustion.

It was MOVED (Arora, Dasgupta) to adopt the Curriculum Committee’s recommendation on Engineering Fundamentals III. The motion PASSED without dissent.

  • Departmental selection – The CC recommended that the departmental selection in the third semester of the common core be assigned credit ranging from 1-4 semester hours and be made optional. A student transferring into a program will be allowed to apply the credit earned in taking the departmental selection in the student’s first program towards meeting the requirements of the program from which the student graduates.

This was adopted by consensus of the EFC.

  • Optional GEC in Third Semester – The CC recommended that the GEC in the third semester of the common core be made optional.
    This was adopted by consensus of the EFC.

[Note – some subsequent changes to these motions were adopted during the meeting of Feb. 4]

3. The EFC decided to hold a special meeting later this week to discuss the content of the mathematics sequence.

4. The EFC adjourned at 10:45 pm until 4:00 pm on January 31, 2002 in 3210 SC.

Respectfully submitted,
 

David R. Andersen, Secretary

----

Sunday, January 27, 2002

To: Prof. Jasbir Arora
Chair, Engineering Faculty Council

From: Steve M. Collins
Chair, Curriculum Committee

Subject: Report on Recommended Revisions to the Common Core Curriculum

The Engineering Faculty Council (EFC) has charged the Curriculum Committee with overseeing the implementation of the New Undergraduate Curriculum that was adopted by the College of Engineering faculty in June, 2001 and that is to be implemented starting in fall, 2002. Pursuant to that charge, the individual programs and the Curriculum Committee have identified a number of problems that require resolution. Accordingly, the Curriculum Committee recommends herein a set of revisions to the three-semester common core curriculum for consideration by the EFC and the College of Engineering faculty. The net effect of these recommendations, some of which have previously been communicated to the EFC, is summarized in the attached table.

In the judgement of the Curriculum Committee, the revisions we propose not only fix some obvious problems with the new undergraduate curriculum but also produce a common core that adheres more closely to the basic principles that form the basis of the new undergraduate curriculum.

The Curriculum Committee did not devote time and effort to the wording of motions to be presented by the EFC to the faculty. Rather, we concentrated on the substance of recommendations to be made to the EFC. In communicating Curriculum Committee decisions to the EFC in this report, I have crafted the recommendations so as to make it easier for the EFC to draft motions for consideration by the College faculty and to facilitate debate of those motions. The Curriculum Committee is not committed to particular language so please feel free to reword our recommendations as appropriate.

Fundamentals of Chemistry I
Recommendation: That 4:01x Fundamentals of Chemistry I be changed to a 3 s.h. lecture course and that a 1 s.h. case study/laboratory course 4:01xL Fundamentals of Chemistry I Lab be added to the common core curriculum in the first semester. Each of these two companion courses would list the other course as a corequisite and would be integrated to the extent that if a student fails to take the lab course they can expected to be at a disadvantage in taking the final exam for the lecture course.

Background: For administrative reasons, the Department of Chemistry wishes to implement this course as a 3 s.h. lecture course and a companion 1 s.h. case study/laboratory course. The lecture course format will be three one-hour lectures per week (with large lecture sections) and one one-hour discussion per week (in small discussion sections). The lab course will meet 2.5 hours per week with alternating meetings devoted to presentation of a case study and a laboratory experience related to the case study. These chemistry courses will be offered in the fall, spring, and summer academic sessions. The Department of Chemistry will not be able to incorporate in the new course some aspects related to core concepts in the course description approved by the College of Engineering faculty. The Department of Chemistry has not made final decisions on the course titles and numbers for the chemistry I lecture and lab courses.

Recommendation: That the prerequisites for Chemistry I be changed to enrollment in the College of Engineering.

Background: It is a rare student admitted to the College of Engineering that fails to meet the ACT and MPT scores that are currently listed as prerequisites for ChemistryI and those that do have no satisfactory way of meeting these requirements.

Rhetoric Corequisite
Recommendation: That 59:005 Engineering Problem Solving I be dropped as a corequisite for 10:003 Accelerated Rhetoric.

Background: Although an argument could be made for listing rhetoric as a corequisite for EPS I, the rationale for making EPS I a corequisite for rhetoric is obscure. At any rate, those students who enter the College and are required to take rhetoric in the spring semester would be unable to satisfy this requirement as EPS I is not offered in the spring. As is currently the case, students who are not prepared to take 10:003 would take 10:001 & 10:002.

Engineering Math I & II Format
Recommendation: That the format of 22M:031 and 22M:032 be changed to three one-hour lectures per week and two one-hour discussions per week.

Background: This change is being made at the request of the Math Department and is motivated by their desire to conserve scare resources and to improve the consistency and/or quality of instruction. The lectures will be delivered by an experienced faculty member in a large lecture section and the discussion sections will be taught by TAs in small sections.

Engineering Physics I
Recommendation: That 29:081 Engineering Physics I be replaced in the common core curriculum with 29:017 Introductory Physics I.

Background:
Due to lack of resources, the Department of Physics will not be able to offer 29:081 Engineering Physics I. The Physics department has agreed to consider revising 29:017 in an evolutionary way to incorporate some of the new elements of the engineering physics course approved by the College of Engineering faculty. Physics I will be offered in the fall and spring semesters.

Engineering Math III Prerequisite
Recommendation: That 22M:031 Engineering Math I be dropped as a prerequisite for 22M:033 Engineering Math III.

Background: This prerequisite is unnecessary since 22M:031 is a prerequisite for 22M:032 which is a corequisite for 22M:033.

Fundamentals of Chemistry II
Recommendation: That a 1 s.h. case study/laboratory course 4:01yL Fundamentals of Chemistry II Lab be added to the common core curriculum in the second semester as a companion to 4:01y Fundamentals of Chemistry II. Each of these courses would list the other course as a corequisite and would be integrated to the extent that if a student fails to take the lab course they can be expected to be at a disadvantage in taking the final exam for the lecture course.

Background: The Department of Chemistry wishes to offer a 1 s.h. laboratory course as a companion to the 3 s.h. Chemistry II lecture course. Both CBE and BME will require their students to take Chemistry II and have asked that the core curriculum be modified to include a parallel lab. Both courses will be offered in the fall, spring, and summer academic sessions. The Department of Chemistry has not made final decisions on the course titles and numbers for the chemistry II lecture and lab courses.

Math II as a Pre- or Corequisite for Statics, Thermo, Circuits and Physics II
Recommendation: That 22M:032 be eliminated as a prerequisite for 59:007 Engineering Fundamentals I - Statics, be eliminated as a corequisite for Engineering Fundamentals II - Electrical Circuits and replaced with a corequisite of 22M:034, be eliminated as a prerequisite for Engineering Fundamentals II - Thermodynamics and replaced with a prerequisite of 22M:031, and be eliminated as a corequisite for 29:082 Engineering Physics II and replaced with a prerequisite of 22M:031.

Background: The second math course taken by engineering students, 22M:036 Engineering Calculus II, is currently a pre- or corequisite for statics, thermodynamics, circuits and physics II. It appears that the pre- and corequisites for these courses were inadvertently left unchanged when the math sequence was restructured to make 22M:032 Engineering Math II - Calculus of Multiple Variables the second math course. Given that most of the material in Engineering Math II is taken from 22M:042 Vector Calculus, it is not appropriate that 22M:032 be listed as a prerequisite or corequisite for the engineering fundamentals and physics II courses. The recommended changes are consistent with the contents and instructional approaches currently employed in statics, thermodynamics, circuits and physics II.

Engineering Physics II
Recommendation: That 29:082 Engineering Physics II - Electricity & Magnetism be changed to a 3 s.h. lecture course and that an optional 1 s.h. laboratory course 29:082L Engineering Physics II Lab be added to the common core curriculum in the third semester. The laboratory course would list the lecture course as a corequisite. The lecture course would not list the lab course as a corequisite. 29:082 would be taught and students evaluated in way that does not penalize students who do not take the companion lab course.

Background: The Department of Physics is able to offer a combination lecture/lab 29:082 Engineering Physics II for 3 s.h. once a year but will not be able to incorporate in the course some aspects related to core concepts in the course description approved by the College of Engineering faculty. However, the Physics faculty voted unanimously to express pedagogical concerns with the course format, content, and potential adverse consequences on student satisfaction due to the use of College of Liberal Arts and Sciences grade distribution guidelines. The latter is a consequence of the fact that on average engineering students in the current Physics II course perform at a higher level than do non-engineering students. Thus, it may well be that the average grade of engineering students in the second physics course will decline if they take an "engineering only" version of physics II.

BME has requested that Physics II be a 4 s.h. course with laboratory. BME's request is motivated in part by the fact that a large number of their students require 8 hours of physics in order to qualify for admission to medical school. BME intends to require all of their students to take a four-hour physics II course. It is BME's preference that this be the same core course that other engineering students take.

As the combined lecture/lab version of 29:082 approved by the Engineering faculty would be offered only once a year, a substantial number of students who are off sequence would take the existing 4 s.h. 29:018 Introductory Physics II course. That they could do so was an implicit premise of the core curriculum adopted last summer. With the off sequence and BME students taking 29:018 and the rest of the College's students taking 29:082, in effect there would be two different physics II courses that were "in" the common core - one three-hour course which would be compatible with program curricula and the other a four-hour course which for many programs would not be compatible with the program curriculum.

The recommended "three-plus-one" structure for Physics II would permit each program to determine whether their students take a three-hour or four-hour physics II and to construct their curriculum accordingly. Alternatively, programs could leave this decision to individual students to make depending on their anticipated EFA courses. Since the recommended courses would be available in both fall and spring semesters, students that are off sequence would not be disadvantaged. The recommended structure also ameliorates some of the problems that students transferring between programs would otherwise experience. Finally, the recommended structure may make it easier for some departments to meet the ABET 32 s.h. math and science requirement.

The content for 29:082 and 29:082L would be similar to that approved by the faculty with the notable addition of material on optics and additional laboratory experience. These two courses would replace the current 29:018 and would be taken by students from other colleges. The Department of Physics has agreed to consider revising the courses in an evolutionary way to incorporate some of the new elements of the Engineering Physics II course approved by the College of Engineering faculty, consistent with the requirement that the courses remain suitable for nonengineering majors. The Department of Physics has not made final decisions on the course titles and numbers for the Physics II lecture and lab courses. It seems likely the word "engineering" will be dropped.

Engineering Fundamentals III - Thermodynamics
Recommendation: That the format of 59:009 Engineering Fundamentals III - Thermodynamics be changed to eliminate the discussion section and the content be revised as described in the attached course description to eliminate material on combustion.

Background: Elimination of the discussion section makes the format of 59:009 consistent with the current format of 57:009 Thermodynamics I. Concerns about the amount of material in the course description approved last summer lead to a recommendation by the instructors and other interested parties to eliminate the material on combustion.

Departmental Selection
Recommendation: That the departmental selection in the third semester of the common core be assigned credit ranging from one to four semester hours and be made optional. A student transferring into a program will be allowed to apply the credit earned in taking the departmental selection in the student's first program towards meeting the requirements of the program from which the student graduates.

Background: BME has requested that the core curriculum be modified to permit their students to take a 4 s.h. Biology I course as the departmental selection. This biology course is a prerequisite for 72:154 Biomedical Engineering Physiology, a required course for all BME students. Biology I can't be delayed until the fourth semester since 72:154 is only offered in the spring semester and is a prerequisite for all of the BME required junior-year courses. The Biology I course is required for BME students hoping to gain admission medical school. An appropriate three semester hour biology course is not available.

The third semester of the core curriculum approved last summer contains six courses and 17 s.h. with an optional departmental seminar. The semester includes Differential Equations, Statics, Electrical Circuits, Thermodynamics, a departmental selection, and either Physics II or a GEC. At least two of these courses have a discussion section and at least one has a lab. Thus, most students will spend 20 hours or more per week in class. Many students will take six "technical" courses representing a broad spectrum of disciplines. This recommendation permits individual programs to address the "heavy third semester" problem by either reducing the credit assigned to the departmental selection or eliminating the departmental selection entirely. This recommendation ameliorates some of the problems that students transferring between programs would otherwise experience.

Optional GEC in Third Semester
Recommendation: That the GEC in the third semester of the common core be made optional.

Background: Programs that require their students to take Chemistry II in the second semester must currently require their students to take a GEC during the third semester.
This recommendations is intended to give these programs another option for addressing the "heavy third semester" problem, a problem which is particularly acute for BME as they need to take a 4-hour departmental selection.

----

59:009 Fundamentals of Engineering III: Thermodynamics

Catalog Data: 59:009 Fundamentals of Engineering III: Thermodynamics 3 s.h.

Description: Basic elements of classical thermodynamics, including first and second laws, properties of pure materials, ideal gas law, reversibility and irreversibility, and Carnot cycle; control volume analysis of closed simple systems and open systems at steady state; engineering applications, including cycles and psychrometrics. Prerequisites: 22M:031, 4:01x and 29:017.

Format: Three hours of lecture and a help room staffed by instructors and teaching assistants for at least 20 hours each week (except during the summer session). Exams are given in the evenings.

Textbook: Moran, M.J. and Shapiro, H.N., Fundamentals of Engineering Thermodynamics, 4th Edition, John Wiley and Sons, 2000. (including IT software)

Coordinator: C. Beckermann, Professor of Mechanical Engineering.

Goals: Students learn the principles of classical thermodynamics and apply them in the solution of practical engineering problems. The course provides a basis for subsequent courses in fluid mechanics, heat transfer, bio-chemical transport, and process modeling. It also encourages systematic and multi-disciplinary thinking, and fosters a global awareness of energy and environmental issues. The core concepts introduced in EPS I and II are reinforced through design and open-ended problems, small reports, and the use of thermodynamics software.

Learning Objectives:
1. The student will become familiar with fundamental concepts and definitions used in the study of thermodynamics.
2. The student will learn about properties of pure, simple, compressible substances and property relations relevant to engineering thermodynamics.
3. The student will have an understanding of energy modes, energy transfer, and energy transformation.
4. The student will understand the basic laws of classical thermodynamics for open and closed systems.
5. The student will learn about some important thermodynamic cycles and their applications.
6. The student will be introduced to basic concepts in psychrometrics.
7. The student will utilize a computer software tool to learn about the design aspect of engineering thermodynamics.

Prerequisites by topic: Basic chemistry, physics, and calculus

Topics (Class Hours):

1. Introduction (3)
2. Work and Heat (3)
3. Properties of Pure Substances, ideal gas law (6)
4. Mass Balance and First Law of Thermodynamics (10)
5. Entropy and Second Law of Thermodynamics (13)
6. Cycles (5)
7. Psychrometrics (4)
(Review) (1)
  (44 or 45)

Computer Usage: Several homework assignments and open-ended/design projects requiring use of the Interactive Thermodynamics software on PCs.

Laboratory Projects: None.

----

1/27/2002

College of Engineering Common Core Curriculum

[ Includes revisions recommended by the Curriculum Committee]

Semester 1 (Fall):
S. H. Session Pre(co)requisites: P or C
22M:031 Engineering Math I - Calculus of a Single Variable 4 All P: H.S. Algebra & Trigonometry
59:005 Engineering Problem Solving I 3 F
4:01x Fundamentals of Chemistry I 3 All C: 4:01xL
4:01xL Fundamentals of Chemistry I Lab 1 All C: 4:01x
10:003 Accelerated Rhetoric (or 10:001 & 10:002) 4 F/S
59:090 College Seminar 0 F
Total hours 15

Semester 2 (Spring):
S. H. Session Pre(co)requisites: P or C
22M:032 Engineering Math II - Calculus of Multiple Variables 4 All P: 22M:031 or AP credit (AB-4)
59:006 Engineering Problem Solving II 3 S C: 22M:031
29:017 Introductory Physics I 4 F/S C: 22M:031
22M:033 Engineering Math III - Matrix Algebra 2 All C: 22M:032
GEC 1 or 3 All
4:01y Fundamentals of Chemistry II and 3 All P: 4:07, 4:01x, or 4:17; C: 4:01yL
4:01yL Fundamentals of Chemistry II Lab 1 All C: 4:0xy
Total hours* 16 or 17

Semester 3 (Fall):
S. H. Session Pre(co)requisites: P or C
22M:034 Engineering Math IV - Differential Equations 3 F/S P: 22M:033
29:082 Engineering Physics II - Electricity & Magnetism or 3 F/S P: 29:017, 22M:031
GEC 1 (optional) 3 All
29:082L Engineering Physics II Lab (optional) 1 F/S C: 29:082
59:007 Engineering Fundamentals I - Statics 2 All P: 22M:031; C: 29:017
59:008 Engineering Fundamentals II - Electrical Circuits 3 All C: 22M:034
59:009 Engineering Fundamentals III - Thermodynamics 3 All P: 22M:031, 4:01x, 29:017
Department Selection (optional) 1-4
Departmental Seminar (optional) 0
Total hours 14 - 18

Notes:

  • Programs requiring Physics II will likely have a total of 17 or 18 hours unless they drop the departmental selection.
  • The Departments of Chemistry and Physics have not made final decisions on the course titles and numbers for the chemistry I, II, and physics II lecture and lab courses.

EFC Meeting # 21
January 31, 2002
Minutes

1. The meeting was called to order by Professor Arora at 4:13 pm in 3210 SC
Members present: Andersen, Arora, Dasgupta, and Swan
Deans present: Butler, Holly
Visitor: Collins

2. A discussion concerning the proposed content and implementation details of the new Engineering Math sequence was held. Issues discussed include:

  • Content issues – will the students receive sufficient single-variable calculus with little more than a single 3 s.h. course devoted to these concepts? Math II is largely a multivariable calculus course as proposed with 11 weeks added to it from 22M:042 making this sequence very different from those offered in our peer institutions.
  • Input provided by some DEOs was discussed.
  • Did the College of Engineering faculty understand the modifications made to the Math sequence? There is evidence that the majority may not have – the prerequisite structure arising from these math courses in the curriculum sheet approved by the College faculty last June and comments from DEO’s, former EFC members, and previous CC chairs all lend credibility to this argument. Certainly very few knew that 11 weeks of material from 22M:042 are now in 22M:32. The impression that all EFC chairs had was that 22M:31 and 32 would be more or less the current 35 and 36, with a modest amount of material, e.g. partial derivatives, added from 42.
  • Impact on programs – some programs have already designed their new curriculum under the assumption that the Math sequence will be implemented as previously described. As a result, the impact of the decision to go with 22M:031 and 22M:032 or not will vary from program to program.
  • Input provided by the Mathematics department was discussed. Concern regarding how to proceed in order not to jeopardize our future good working relationship with Mathematics was expressed. We have had very good working relationship with them in the past.
  • It was noted that there was still time to implement any change approved by the College of Engineering faculty. (Events subsequent to this discussion suggest that this was not true.)
  • Transfer and AP credit issues with respect to a 4-course Math sequence exist and are potentially serious. Data provided by SDC indicates that during the 2000-01 Academic Year, 109 students transferred to the College with credit for Calculus I and another 67 with credit for Calculus II. Also 29 students received Advanced Placement AP:AB credit and 10 for AP:BC credit. Students transferring from other institutions may have problems given the uniqueness of our sequence. It was noted that some of the transferred students may have actually transferred from other Colleges in this University, and may not be adversely impacted if advised appropriately.
  • Input from the Curriculum Committee. The Curriculum Committee in their report of 27 January 2002 discussed the Math I & II issue at some length. The Curriculum Committee report noted that the Committee had formally voted 3-2 to recommend to the EFC that the College proceed with implementation of the math sequence as voted by the College faculty. The report also noted that one Curriculum Committee member had to leave during their meeting and did not participate in the subsequent Curriculum Committee discussion and vote but did express (in writing) support for implementing the math sequence as is. In considering its own recommendation to the Engineering faculty, the EFC presumed that vote of the Curriculum Committee was effectively 4-2 for this recommendation.
  • Comparisons of the mathematics requirements of some of our peer institutions.

3. Following this discussion, it was MOVED (Dasgupta, Andersen) to direct the EFC Chair to give notice to Mathematics that the EFC will recommend to the College of Engineering faculty at its meeting of 19th February a 3-semester calculus sequence in which the 3rd course will be largely devoted to multi-variable calculus.

The motion PASSED 4-0.

4. The EFC adjourned at 6:30 pm until 8:30 am on February 4, 2002 in 3501 SC.

Respectfully submitted,
 

David R. Andersen, Secretary

EFC Meeting # 22
February 4, 2002
Minutes

1. The meeting was called to order by Professor Arora at 8:30 am in 3501 SC
Members present: Abdel-Malek, Andersen, Arora, Dasgupta, and Swan
Deans present: Butler, Holly

2. The minutes of EFC Meeting # 19, January 23, 2002 were approved as distributed.

3. The minutes of EFC Meeting # 20, January 28, 2002 were amended and approved.

4. Professor Arora reported on his communications with Mathematics regarding the motion passed by the EFC at its last meeting.

Prof. Arora informed the Dept. of Mathematics of the EFC’s actions following the adjournment of the EFC meeting of Jan. 31, 2002. The following morning the Dean of Engineering was informed that the College of Engineering needed to commit to one math sequence or the other that same morning or Math would proceed with the math sequence as approved by the College of Engineering faculty last June.

Prof. Arora informed Prof. Manderscheid (DEO of Mathematics) that he could not make this decision on behalf of either the EFC or the College faculty on such short notice. He then made an alternate proposal to him, namely to only teach 22M:31 in the Fall 2002 semester, in order that the College of Engineering faculty may have time to respond to the EFC’s motion at their meeting of Feb. 19. However, Prof. Manderscheid said this alternative would not be acceptable. He indicated that the Mathematics Department would go with the new Math sequence in Fall 2002.

5. After a long discussion on the subject of calculus sequence in our core curriculum, it was MOVED (Dasgupta, Andersen) that the EFC make the following motion at the College of Engineering faculty meeting on Feb. 19:

That a mail ballot be conducted on the following motion:

Calculus Sequence
The College of Engineering faculty adopts a three course calculus sequence, and requests the Department of Mathematics to introduce a new course, 22M:037, that together with 22M:031 and 22M:032, will be a part of this sequence. 22M:037 will be largely devoted to multivariable calculus and Engineering programs may choose to require it at their discretion. The content of 22M:031 (name shortened to Engineering Math I) and 22M:032 (name shortened to Engineering Math II) will be revised to expand the coverage of single-variable calculus, while including some topics from multivariable calculus.

Transition Period
The revised 22M:031 will be offered for the first time after a transition period of two semesters (i.e., fall 2003). The content of 22M:031 & 32 during this transition period is left entirely to the discretion of the Department of Mathematics. Should the Department of Mathematics wish to offer other existing courses as substitutes for 22M:031 & 32 during this transition period, these substitutions will be accepted. Should the Department of Mathematics decide that a shorter transition period is desirable, the implementation schedule will be advanced.

Process
The College of Engineering faculty will defer to the judgement of the faculty of the Department of Mathematics as to the detailed content and pedagogical approaches adopted in these courses. The College of Engineering Curriculum Committee will work with the Department of Mathematics to develop the general content of the new course and the revisions to 22M:031 and 22M:032. In revising 22M:031 and 22M:032, the Curriculum Committee should be mindful of transfer and advanced placement issues.

The motion PASSED 5-0.

6. The draft final report on Recommended Revisions to the Common Core Curriculum submitted by the College Curriculum Committee and dated Feb. 3, 2002 was considered by the EFC. The recommendations contained in the report were adopted for consideration by the College of Engineering faculty at their meeting of Feb. 19 by consensus of the EFC. The final version of this report, dated February 7, 2002 will be submitted to the faculty as part of the advance meeting materials for that faculty meeting.

7. The EFC adjourned at 10:15 am until 8:30 am on February 11, 2002 in 3501 SC.

Respectfully submitted,
 

David R. Andersen, Secretary

----

Professor David Manderscheid 12 February 2002
THE UNIVERSITY OF IOWA
Chair, Department of Mathematics

Dear Professor Manderscheid:

This is to let you to know that we accept your decision of 1 February 2002 to go forward with the New Engineering Math Curriculum for the 2002-03 school year. We would also like to note that we have no doubt that the Math faculty teaching the new courses will do an excellent job in their delivery.
The situation we find ourselves in is entirely the responsibility of the College of Engineering Faculty, and in no way should be attributed to the Math faculty. Over a period of several years you and your colleagues have been gracious and efficient in providing us the information that we requested, and have worked long and hard to do what we asked of you. We deeply appreciate the help, and will do every thing possible to continue this good working relationship.
As you know, the Engineering Faculty Council (EFC) has come to the conclusion that asking you to reduce 5 math course to 4 (i.e., 3 calculus courses to 2) was a mistake. This has led to the result that, in our opinion, does not serve engineering students and the College of Engineering as well as a three-semester calculus sequence would. At the same time we have also concluded that going back to the old sequence of 22M:35-36-42 is not a good idea. At its meeting of 4 February 2002, the EFC reaffirmed these conclusions. Although we had initially hoped to implement this three-semester calculus sequence starting next fall, we recognize now that coming to this conclusion so late in the game creates problems. To address this time constraint and our desire for a three-semester calculus sequence, the EFC unanimously (5-0) adopted the motion attached to this letter.
As you can see, the motion permits the College of Engineering faculty to make the basic decision as to whether our students are best served by a two-semester or three-semester calculus sequence. It also describes the transition period to accommodate the timetable constraints. The second paragraph reflects our desire to do whatever we can to maintain a good relationship with the Math Department and to formally express our confidence in the judgment and expertise of the Math faculty. It gives nearly complete discretion to you and your colleagues about the length and nature of the transition period. The third paragraph describes the process to be followed in developing the modified three-course calculus sequence and also gives considerable discretion to the Math faculty in deciding the detailed content and pedagogical approaches.
The EFC believes that it is important to keep the transition period as short as possible and thus has decided to move quickly to bring this matter to a vote so that the College of Engineering faculty can make a final decision about our core curriculum. I will let you know what the Engineering faculty decides on 19 February 2002.

With best regards!
Sincerely,

Jasbir S. Arora
Chair, Engineering Faculty Council 2001-02

Cc: Associate Dean Antczak, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences
Dean Butler, Associate Dean Holly, College of Engineering

-----

Motion 1
Calculus Sequence in College of Engineering Core Curriculum

The EFC moves that a mail ballot be conducted on the following motion:

Calculus Sequence
The College of Engineering faculty adopts a three course calculus sequence, and requests the Department of Mathematics to introduce a new course, 22M:037, that together with 22M:031 and 22M:032, will be a part of this sequence. 22M:037 will be largely devoted to multivariable calculus and Engineering programs may choose to require it at their discretion. The content of 22M:031 (name shortened to Engineering Math I) and 22M:032 (name shortened to Engineering Math II) will be revised to expand the coverage of single-variable calculus, while including some topics from multivariable calculus.

Transition Period
The revised 22M:031 will be offered for the first time after a transition period of two semesters (i.e., fall 2003). The content of 22M:031 & 32 during this transition period is left entirely to the discretion of the Department of Mathematics. Should the Department of Mathematics wish to offer other existing courses as substitutes for 22M:031 & 32 during this transition period, these substitutions will be accepted. Should the Department of Mathematics decide that a shorter transition period is desirable, the implementation schedule will be advanced.

Process
The College of Engineering faculty will defer to the judgement of the faculty of the Department of Mathematics as to the detailed content and pedagogical approaches adopted in these courses. The College of Engineering Curriculum Committee will work with the Department of Mathematics to develop the general content of the new course and the revisions to 22M:031 and 22M:032. In revising 22M:031 and 22M:032, the Curriculum Committee should be mindful of transfer and advanced placement issues.

----

Marilyn:
Attached are 3 more items that should go as appendixes for EFC Meeting # 22 minutes.

Dave

Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 08:58:26 -0600
To: David Manderscheid <mander@math.uiowa.edu>
From: "Jasbir S. Arora" <Jasbir-Arora@uiowa.edu>
Subject: Engineering Math Sequence
Cc: david-andersen@uiowa.edu, Soura Dasgupta <dasgupta@engineering.uiowa.edu>,
swan@engineering.uiowa.edu, karim-abdel-malek@uiowa.edu,
Jasbir Arora <jasbir-arora@uiowa.edu>, forrest-holly@uiowa.edu,
patrick-butler@uiowa.edu

Dear Professor Mandersheid:

Thanks for your thoughtful discussion on the subject of engineering math sequence last night. As requested by you, I am informing
you the recommendation of the Engineering Faculty Council (EFC) via this email.

The EFC met on Thursday, 31 January 2002 to discuss the engineering math sequence in our undergraduate programs. After a long
discussion, the following motion was adopted with a vote of 4-yes and 0-no:

"The EFC chair give notice to Mathematics that the EFC will recommend to the College of Engineering faculty on its meeting of 19th February a
3-semester calculus sequence in which the 3rd course will be largely devoted to multi-variable calculus."

Please note that it will only be a recommendation to the College of Engineering faculty on which they will have an opportunity to vote yes
or no.

Thanks for your patience and hard work by you and your colleagues.

With best regards and best wishes for your trip!

Sincerely,
Jasbir

Jasbir S. Arora
F. Wendell Miller Distinguished Professor of Engineering
Chair, Engineering Faculty Council, 2001-02
4110 SC
Tel: 319-335-5658
 

Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 11:07:05 -0600
From: David Manderscheid <mander@math.uiowa.edu>
To: Forrest Holly <fmholly@engineering.uiowa.edu>,
Fred Antczak <frederick-antczak@uiowa.edu>, patrick-butler@uiowa.edu,
jasbir-arora@uiowa.edu
Subject: A decision

I had a conversation this morning with Associate Dean Fred Antzcak of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences concerning how
long we can wait to decide on the curriculum. With all the deadlines that have passed and the fact that a decision to change would still be some
time coming from Engineering he reinforced my belief that a decision needs to be made. We can wait no longer. Thus we will go forward
with the new Engineering Math Curriculum for the 2002-03 school year as previously agreed. We look forward to working with Engineering
to make the new curriculum work well. We also look forward to developing in concert potential 5th courses to meet the needs of
departments desiring such courses.

This is a decision that I do not make lightly. It has become clear to me that action is needed. I will be out of the office until 2/11 for
a research trip to France. I will be reading my email while gone and my secretary, Ms. Margaret Driscol, has contact information.

David Manderscheid
Professor and Chair
Mathematics Dept
 

Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2002 14:13:48 -0600
To: abscran@engineering.uiowa.edu, robert-ettema@uiowa.edu, jon-kuhl@uiowa.edu,
krishnan-chandran@uiowa.edu, jeffrey-marshall@uiowa.edu
From: "Jasbir S. Arora" <Jasbir-Arora@uiowa.edu>
Subject: Prof. Manderscheid's email - Backgound
Cc: david-andersen@uiowa.edu, Soura Dasgupta <dasgupta@engineering.uiowa.edu>,
swan@engineering.uiowa.edu, karim-abdel-malek@uiowa.edu,
Jasbir Arora <jasbir-arora@uiowa.edu>, patrick-butler@uiowa.edu,
forrest-holly@uiowa.edu, steve-collins@uiowa.edu,
David Manderscheid <mander@math.uiowa.edu>

DEOs:

Since the email I forwarded to you on Friday (2/1/02) from Professor Manderscheid, Chair of the Department of Mathematics, may have
been difficult to interpret in the absence of knowledge of the EFC's actions, I provide below some background.

This past Thursday afternoon and evening, the EFC had a long discussion about the contents of Engineering Math I & II (22M:031 &
22M:032) and ultimately decided to adopt with a vote of 4-yes and 0-no, the following motion:

"The EFC chair give notice to Mathematics that the EFC will recommend to the College of Engineering faculty at its meeting of 19th February a
3-semester calculus sequence in which the third course will be largely devoted to multi-variable calculus."

I called Professor Manderscheid at home Thursday night to inform him of the EFC's action and Friday morning I sent him an e-mail that I will
forward to you.

Some time after 10:00 a. m. Friday, I was informed that Professor Manderscheid had given the College of Engineering a deadline of 11:00 a. m.
that same morning to make a final decision about a go/no-go with the new Engineering Math I (22M:031) and Math II (22M:032) courses. I was informed
that if the EFC or I failed to make a final decision, Math would proceed with offering of the new courses as is.

Shortly after that, I had a brief conversation with Professor Manderscheid. I informed him that I could not act on behalf of the EFC or
the College of Engineering faculty on such short notice on such an important matter. I requested some more time to consult the EFC. He
indicated that he could wait no longer. In an effort to be responsive to his need for a decision and yet give the College of Engineering faculty
time to discuss the contents of the calculus courses, I then proposed to him that they might offer Math I (22M:031) "as is" in Fall 2002 and delay
offering Math II (22M:032) to Spring 2003. Although this proposal has some drawbacks from our perspective, I felt that it would be a way to move
forward and still permit the College faculty to discuss the contents of the calculus courses. He indicated that it would not be possible for Math to
agree to this proposal. Subsequently, Professor Manderscheid sent the email that I forwarded to you on Friday.

I hope that I have clarified any possible confusion. Please let me know if you have questions. Thanks.

With best wishes!

Jasbir S. Arora
F. Wendell Miller Distinguished Professor of Engineering
Chair, Engineering Faculty Council, 2001-02
4110 SC
Tel: 319-335-5658

 

EFC Meeting # 23
February 11, 2002
Minutes

1. The meeting was called to order by Professor Arora at 8:41 am in 3501 SC
Members present: Abdel-Malek, Andersen, Arora, Dasgupta, and Swan
Dean present: Butler

2. The minutes of EFC Meeting # 21, January 31, 2002 were amended and approved.

3. Prof. Arora announced that he had received a letter of resignation from Prof. Collins as chair of the Curriculum Committee. After some discussion, it was MOVED (Andersen, Swan) to not accept Prof. Collins’s resignation and ask him to reconsider. The motion PASSED 5-0.

4. A draft version of a letter to Prof. Manderscheid (DEO of Mathematics) concerning the EFC motion on the calculus sequence was distributed by Profs. Dasgupta and Arora. Suggestions for wording were solicited.

5. The final wording of the motion to be presented at the February 19, 2002 CoE faculty meeting concerning the adoption of the Curriculum Committee’s report of February 7, 2002 (covering the balance of curriculum issues besides mathematics) was discussed and approved.

6. The agenda for the February 19, 2002 CoE faculty meeting was finalized. Prof. Arora will ask Prof. Valentine to give a report on the progress of the EPS I Development Team. The agenda will consist of the following items:

  • the motion on the Engineering Math sequence
  • the motion on the Curriculum Committee’s recommendations
  • a progress report from the EPS I Development Team

7. The EFC adjourned at 10:15 am until 8:30 am on February 18, 2002 in 3501 SC.

Respectfully submitted,
 

David R. Andersen, Secretary