Content Comparison

...

Minutes

• Called to order at 2:05pm.
• This was a voluntary subcommittee meeting with the purpose of discussing how the sub-disciplines/specialization areas were presented to ECE students. Topics discussed and points raised included:
  • There is a perception that many EE students make their 3-of-5 choices based on perceived "ease" of the course instead of how a given course would prepare the student for advanced coursework or their careers. Similarly, there is a perception that CE students do not understand the value of any of the 1-of-6 course choices and, therefore, opt into a course guided by perceived "ease."
  • The specializations would be useful to students if they were tied to a career trajectory. The specializations should be labeled in such a way that they provide students with expertise that a potential employer can latch on to. It was suggested to take a look at the types of initial jobs our students take and create a set of labels from this data.
  • The specializations should not be divided into EE vs. CE specializations. Although we have separate curricula, there are certain specializations that fit equally well into each curriculum.
  • Specializations should not be required (i.e., no certificates or notification on transcripts) and should be strictly informational. They should inform and augment advising and should not introduce more administrative overhead.
  • There was discussion about how the sub-disciplines should be labeled. The current EE and CE sub-disciplines take different approaches (taxonomy vs. application). There was also discussion about at what level the sub-disciplines should be listed.  Students may have an idea of what they want to do, but not know the correct label/sub-label for it. For example, a student interested in electronic music might not know to look under the heading of "Bioengineering, acoustics, and magnetic resonance engineering."
• It was suggested that a template be developed for areas to consider using in describing different sub-disciplines/specializations. Initial thoughts on what constituted a good description:
  • A balance of core courses for the sub-discipline ("required") and suggested ("optional") courses. The suggested courses could further differentiate within a sub-discipline (see "Communication Systems", which further divides into "communication systems analysis and design", "RF engineering, circuitry, and hardware", and "computer communication networks.")
  • The sub-discipline should be grounded in the curriculum's core (i.e., one or more of the 3-of-5 courses) and should have 2 or 3 suggested courses.  A sub-discipline should not consume all of a student's ECE and non-ECE technical elective credits. Limiting the number of courses will encourage students to seek out multiple areas.
  • Specific semesters/sequences should be avoided in the description, as this will require effort to maintain as course offerings change from year-to-year.
  • Including courses at the 500-level may be appropriate, and would allow the information to be useful to MEng students (or undergraduates wanting more depth in an area).
• Makela will generate a draft template to share with the sub-committee at a future meeting.
• The meeting was adjourned at 2:52pm.

...