State of the Department: Statistics 11am Meet with New Faculty
11:45 All Faculty: Educational objectives 12:30 Lunch w/ Faculty & Students (MSEC 367)
1:30 Student Session (MSEC 367) Faculty Discussion - Report Out
Wrap-up: Recs for 2008, Actions, and Ownership Adjourn
Fall 2007 ChE Advisory Board Mtg.February 1, 2008
Dr. Don WeinkaufPhD. - Chemical EngineeringUniversity of Texas at Austin
Dr. Bob BretzPhD - Biochemical EngineeringTexas A&M University
Dr. Corey LeclercPhD - Chemical EngineeringUniversity of Minnesota
Dr. Michaelann TartisPhD - Biomedical EngineeringUniversity of California - Davis
John MarshallBS - General EngineeringNew Mexico Tech
Dr. Tom BickelPhD. Chemical EngineeringUniversity of Texas at Austin
Dr. Doug DunstonMS Physics - Cal BerkeleyDMA - Music - Claremont
Dr. Mark CalPhD - Environmental EngineeringUniversity of Illinois
Dr. Robert LeePhD. Chemical EngineeringUniversity of Michigan
Dr. John McCoyPhD. Physical ChemistryUniversity of Pennsylvania
Dr. Junhang DongAssociate ProfessorUniversity of Cincinnati A
ctiv
e A
djun
ct a
nd P
art T
ime
Fac
ulty
Che
mic
al E
ngin
eeri
ng F
acul
ty &
Sta
ff
Engineering UG / FTE Ratios
0.0
200.0
400.0
600.0
800.0
1000.0
1200.0
1400.0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Total UG
All Others
ENGR
Enrollment Trends - Entering Freshmen
2000 - 254 Entering Freshmen2005 - 2792006 - 2822007 - 240
2000 - 72% NM Residents (74/26 M/F)2005 - 84% NM Residents (lottery effect?) (71/29 M/F)2006 - 83%2007 - 85%
2000 - 26 % Native American / Hispanic2005 - 26 % 2006 - 28.7% (w/ 26+% Hispanic) 2007 - 29.2 % ( w 27.9% Hispanic) - may soon qualify as Hispanic serving institution
2000 - 41% Top tenth of class (9% bottom half)2005 - 41% Top tenth of class (12% bottom half)2006 - 32% Top tenth (11% bottom half)2007 - 31% Top tenth (9 % bottom half)
Watch this in future
Average NMT ACT Composite Score
25
25.2
25.4
25.6
25.8
26
26.2
98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07
Avg. ACT (NMT)
Enrollment Trends
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07
Total ChE
F'98 5 Yr Plan
Freshman
Enrollment Trends
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07
% of Tot. UG Enrollment
% of Tot. Fresh
Expect slight decline in graduates over next couple years
614
21
34
46
59
73
88
103
117
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07
# of Graduates
accumulated alums
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07
Freshmen# of Graduates
Expect slight decline in graduates over next couple yearsMay be softened by transfers
0.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
200.0
250.0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
BIOLCHEMCHEM ECSE&ESEEENVE - CIVMATEMATHMECHMINEPETRPHYSPSY
UG Enrollments
7
7
96
123.5
FTE
ChemE is in top echelon of enrollments but has a fraction of the faculty support
5
Campus UG / FTE Ratios
For the past 6 Years ChemE has operated with double the Tech Student to Faculty Ratio Average of 11:1
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
UG student/FTE
BIOL
CHEM
CHEM E
CS
E&ES
EE
ENVE - CIV
MATE
MATH
MECH
MINE
PETR
PHYS
PSY
MECH
ChE
CS
ENV-CIVBIOL
EE
PSY
PHYS
REST
-
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
BIOL
CHEM
CHEM E
Civil
CS
E&ES
EE
ENVE
Gen/Bas St
IT
MATE
MATH
MECH
MGT
MINE
MST
PETR
PHYS
PSY
TC
Trends in Freshmen Enrollment
Trends clearly indicate that ChemE will have roughly the same number of students as EE, Physics, and BIOL with less than half of the faculty support
7
7
9
6123.5
FTE
QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
2005
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
UG Enrollment / FTE
Mechanical Chemical Electrical Envr/Civil Mineral Petroleum Materials
2005 Engineering UG / FTE Ratios
ABET: Institutional strengths of low student to faculty ratios not part of Chemical and Mechanical educational experience
2006
2006 Engineering UG / FTE Ratios
High Student to Faculty Ratios Still Not Addressed w/ New Faculty in Fall 2007
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
UG Enrollment / FTE
Mechanical Chemical Electrical Envr/Civil Mineral Petroleum Materials
2007
2007 Engineering UG / FTE Ratios
No Engineering Faculty Searches Currently Open2 Electrical Positions Opened-Filled in Spring 2007
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
UG Enrollment / FTE
Mechanical Chemical Electrical Envr/Civil Mineral Petroleum Materials
Major
Undergraduate Enrollment Fall 2003
Percentage of Total Undergraduate
Enrollment Computer Science 187 16.3
Electrical Engineering 183 15.9 Mechanical Engineering 133 11.5
Physics 101 8.8 Biology 96 8.4
Chemical Engineering 74 6.4 Chemistry 42 3.7
Materials Engineering 39 3.4 Undecided 34 3.0
Mathematics 30 2.6
Total UG Enrollment 1148 -
Major
Underg raduate Enro llment
Fa ll 2005 (0 6) [07]
Percentage of Tota l Underg raduate
Enro llment Mechan ica l Eng ineer ing 181 (1 81) [201] 15.3 ( 15.5) [17.7]
Compute r Sc ience 163 ( 149) [128] 13.8 ( 12.8) [11.3] Electr ica l Eng ineer ing 126 (1 22) [114] 10.6 ( 10.5) [10.0]
Biology 111 (1 08) [84] 9.4 (9. 3) [7.4] Phys ics 93 (9 3) [84] 7.9 (8. 0) [7.4]
Chemical Engineering 79 (7 9) [77] 6.7 (6. 8) [6.8]
Chemistry 40 (3 8) [35] 3.4 (3. 3) [3.1] Undec ided 40 3.3
Earth Sc ience 37 (4 4) 3.1 (3. 8) Mater ia ls Eng ineer ing 35 (4 4) [41] 3.0 (3. 8) [3.6]
Tot al UG Enrollment 1184 -
2005 ObservedTRENDS
Disparity of Faculty Resources
Only current searches CS and Physics w/ 2 EE slots filled in 2007
In 3 years (2008) EE and Physics Dept’swill be roughlythe same UG size asChemE, both have 2 to 3 times as thenumber of faculty than that in ChemE
In 3 years (2008) EE and Physics Dept’swill be roughlythe same UG size asChemE, both have 2 to 3 times as thenumber of faculty than that in ChemE
2005
Freshmen enrollment holds key to predicting future major size
TRENDS
2006
In 3 years (2008) EE and Physics Dept’swill be roughlythe same UG size asChemE, both have 2 to 3 times thenumber of faculty than that in ChemE
Freshmen enrollment holds key to predicting future major size
QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
TRENDS
2007
In 3 years (2008) EE and Physics Dept’swill be roughlythe same UG size asChemE, both have 2 to 3 times thenumber of faculty than that in ChemE
Freshmen enrollment holds key to predicting future major size
Distribution of Teaching (Credit Hours)
2004: 300-400 level credits increasing, grad in decline2004 Goal: Increase grad credit hrs to 90/yr by Fall 2006: Met Goal
06-07 Expected to have low grad credits
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
96-
97
97-
98
98-
99
99-
00
00-
01
01-
'02
02-
'03
03-
'04
04-
05'
05-
06
grad cr hrs
100-200
300-400
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
140%
160%
180%
Formula Funding $ / Program Budget
96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-'02 02-'03 03-'04 04-05' 05-06
FTE/Budget Ratio
% grad credit funding
7 year avg: FTE/Budget = 142% in an UG non-service program!
% of Graduate Cycles with Maturation of Faculty
Budget and FTE Return
As of 2005-06, fringe benefits have been added to overall budgets. Thus 100% return is the true measure of FTE solvency.
?
Administrative Support Financial
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
99-00 00-01 01-'02 02-'03 03-'04 04-05' 05-06 06-07
Equip Inst (k$)
Lab Fees (k$)
2 new engineering programs w/ capital needs
77.768.9
150.3
212.9
251.6
170.0
0.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
200.0
250.0
300.0
Research Expenditures (k$/FTE)
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
new faculty coming on lineFunding outlook looks solid
Research Expenditures per FTE
W/ 2.5 FTEW/ 3.5 FTE
HighBay136-236
No New Space Allocatedsince 20002.5 FTE in 20003.5 FTE in 2006
5 years: Most productiveEngineering ResearchProgram on Campus
Smallest Science & EngrSpace Allocation on Campus
No other UG facilities resideoff campus except ChemE
Need Space.
25175
21786
18912
14668
92828782
5785 5307 50204370 4369 4240
2945
1576
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
E&ES Phys
ChemistryMATR EngrBiology
ELEC Engr
ENVR/CIV Engr
MECH EngrPETR EngrCompSci IT
Math
MIN EngrCHEM Engr
Management
Total Space Allocated (ft2)
Data from Business Office Indirect Cost Analysis (2004)
Space resources also limit potential in ChemE
19811891
1834
1547
1413
1259 12551157
1098
965
841
624
397315
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Phys
ChemistryMATR Engr
BiologyMIN Engr
E&ES
PETR Engr
ENVR/CIV Engr
ELEC EngrMECH EngrCHEM EngrCompSci IT
Math
Management
Sq Ft/FTE
2004 Pre-Cramer Renovation
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
MATR Engr ELEC Engr ENVR/CIV Engr MECH Engr PETR Engr MIN Engr CHEM Engr
Sqaure Footage
2 year Avg Proposal $/sq ft of dept space
$-
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
CompSci IT
E&ES
CHEM EngrManagement
BiologyMECH EngrChemistryELEC Engr
Phys
MATR Engr
ENVR/CIV Engr
Math
PETR EngrMIN Engr
Space resources also limit potential in ChemE
Summary for 2007
add FTE and consolidate labs.
Let’s make this happen.
Demonstrated Commitment to Goals of the Institute
Recommended Actions: Department for 2005
1. Carry Over: Carry out plan to increase “bodies” involved with Chemical Engineering students (FTE = 4.0) Owner Weinkauf/Gerity
2. Carry Over: Initiate “Real” Space and Utilization Dialogue with all Dept’s in building - Owner: Strategic Planning Committee (Weinkauf) / President
3. Reinvigorate Freshmen Recruiting Plan - Goal of 20 New ChE Fall 2005 - Owner: Jeon/Dong/Weinkauf (Met GOAL)
4. Continue to Develop Graduate Component of Work - Goal 90 Credit Hrs/Yr by Fall 2006 - Owner: ChE Faculty (Met GOAL)
5. Continue to Assess Program and Assessment Plan: Owner: Advisory Board/ChE Faculty (Met GOAL)
6. Increase quality of Chemical Engineering Lab Experience. Owners: Weinkauf/Dong/Jeon. (Met GOAL)
7. Carry Over: Develop 5 Year Plan. Owner: ChE Faculty Due January 2006.
Recommended Actions: Department for 2006
1. Carry Over: Carry out plan to increase “bodies” involved with Chemical Engineering students (FTE = 4.0) Owner Weinkauf/Gerity
2. Carry Over: Initiate “Real” Space and Utilization Dialogue with all Dept’s in building - Owner: Strategic Planning Committee (Weinkauf) / President
3. Carry Over: Develop 5 Year Plan. Owner: ChE Faculty Due March 2007.
4. Understand the career goals and ensure satisfaction of our faculty: Owner: Weinkauf / VP Romero. (Did not MEET GOAL)
5. Reach out to elder alumni to become involved in the development and direction of the program. Owner: Weinkauf (Did not MEET GOAL)
6. Bring all faculty in line with expectations for excellence. Owner: Chair (MET GOAL).
7. Begin clearly addressing ABET concerns and corrected shortcomings. Owners: ChE Faculty. (curriculum, assessment yes…)
Recommended Actions: Department for 2007
1. Carry Over: Carry out plan to increase “bodies” involved with Chemical Engineering students (FTE = 4.0) Owner Weinkauf/Gerity
2. Carry Over: Initiate “Real” Space and Utilization Dialogue with all Dept’s in building - Owner: Strategic Planning Committee (Weinkauf) / President
3. Carry Over: Develop 5 Year Plan. Owner: ChE Faculty Due March 2007.
4. Get new faculty & get new faculty up and running: Owner: Weinkauf / VP Romero.
5. Reach out to elder alumni and new companies in New Mexico to become involved in the development and direction of the program. Owner: Board
6. Adjust curriculum to respond to new faculty strengths and assessment tools. Owner: Chair.
Educational Objectives
Educational Objectives:
1. We will develop complete engineers who can: solve problems,
experiment, innovate, be resourceful, and champion ideas through effective communication.
2. We will engender an understanding of the broad reach of a modern
Chemical Engineering education and the array of knowledge required to implement solutions which will benefit our society.
3. We will provide a conduit to successful careers in the spectrum of fields
which benefit from a command of the principles of Chemical Engineering.
4. We will foster a life long love of learning, opening doors to graduate study and enabling graduates to adapt to changes and opportunities in the profession.
Recommended Actions: Educational Objectives for 20061. Adjust the curriculum to reinforce students exposure to Numerical Methods
in the Junior and Senior years. (Owner: Jeon) Not Met
2. Incorporate Design of Experiments into the Unit Operations Laboratory. Evaluate two lab senior year (Owners: Dong /Sharma) Met
3. Learn from other schools effective methods of teaching assessment and modes to improve teaching effectiveness (Owner: Weinkauf) Not Met
4. Provide a more complete examination of the low FE exam scores in key Chemical Engineering areas (Owner: ChE Faculty) Met
5. Conduct the scheduled 5-10 year review of alumni and gage success of
Educational Objective #4 (Owner: Weinkauf). Not Met
Educational Objectives Report:
1. Summarize FE exam results
2. Update placement statistics
3. Recent Graduate Survey Results
4. Alumni Survey Results (every 3 years)
5. Summarize: Outside review of design presentations
6. Summarize: General Degree Requirement Assessment (broad education)
2003-05 FE Exam ChemE ResultsComparison with Univ. of S. Alabama (required)
Historically Tech ChemE’s pass at 71% rateHistorically Univ. S. Alabama (6 yr. ABET accreditation) - 71%
2004 -2006 ChemE’s 71 % pass rate.
-15.00
-10.00
-5.00
0.00
5.00
10.00
chemistycomputers
dynamics
elec. circuits
engr econ
ethics fluidsmat sci
math
mech of matr
statics thermo
NMT Overall 03-05
S. Ala (8 yr Avg)
Blue = NMTPeach = NMT + USAla
Total ChemE FE Results thru 2005Comparison with Univ. of S. Alabama (required)
Blue = NMTPeach = NMT + USAla
ChemE’s Pass on morning results.-16.00
-14.00
-12.00
-10.00
-8.00
-6.00
-4.00
-2.00
0.00 num methodschem rxn kinchem thermoequip designheat transmat/energymass transprocesscontrol desgn/econeval pollution prevprocess safetytransportphenom
ChE Avg. Score - ChE National Avg.)
Total ChemE FE Results thru 2006Comparison with Univ. of S. Alabama (required)
Blue = NMTPeach = NMT + USAla
40 examinees… clear trends emerging..-16.00
-14.00
-12.00
-10.00
-8.00
-6.00
-4.00
-2.00
0.00
2.00
num methodschem rxn kinchem thermoequip designheat transmat/energymass transprocesscontrol desgn/econeval pollution prevprocess safetyfluids chemistry
ChE Avg. Score - ChE National Avg.)
Recommended Actions: Educational Objectives for 2008
1. Revise Reaction Kinetics Course with eye on poor performance in FE exams as well as look for opportunities to reinforce numerical methods. (Owner: Leclerc)
2. Complete evaluation of ChemE Laboratory sequence to reinforce transport concepts. Evaluate two lab senior year (Owners: All Faculty )
3. Learn from other schools effective methods of teaching assessment and modes to improve teaching effectiveness (Owner: Weinkauf) Carry Over
4. Conduct the scheduled 5-10 year review of alumni and gage success of Educational Objective #4 (Owner: Faculty and Staff).
5. Design and Implement ChE 110 - Intro course with assessment eyes on retention. (Owner: Tartis).
Top Related