E-mail to  Ken Koford from Ken Lomax

 

 

First Concern:  Math requirements

        We surveyed our juniors and seniors during spring semester, 2002,

concerning their experience with math courses.  What we learned, in summary,

was that those students who had taken MATH 117 had earned, on average, one

letter grade higher in their first calculus course.  Thus we are requiring

MATH 117 in our program, particularly for first-year students.   Students

who have completed the first calculus course prior to joining our program

would not necessarily be forced to take MATH 117 - that specific requirement

could be waived for those 'change-of-major' students.   If another

change-of-major student were to be weak in pre-calculus skills, then the

requirement is there to provide for those credits within the program.

        Also within the math requirement, the choice of calculus is noted by

the committee.  Looking ahead, there will be another choice of calculus

offered next year, according to the course inventory.   We would prefer the

proposed engineering calculus courses, MATH 231 and 232, rather than

241/242, but we did not show them, as they have not been approved.   The

three credit calculus courses have more examples for business subjects

rather than technical subjects, so although we accept the MATH 221/222

series, we prefer the technical emphasis in the new 231/232, or the more

theoretical 241/242 series.  The committee's suggestion of 'with permission

of advisor' for 221/222 is acceptable.  If the new MATH 231/232 sequence is

approved for next year, then we want to show that pair of courses in place

of MATH 241/242.

 

Second concern: departmental approved list of course for Technical

Specialization

 

        We prefer to change this wording to "appropriate to the student's

professional goals, subject to approval by the student's faculty advisor".

We will not need a list of approved courses.

        Also, under Technical Support, that same phrase could be used to

communicate that courses for this category are not freely selected by the

student. 

        The variation in credits required for Tech Specialization is

intended to allow for different requirements for different minors, and it is

also intended to encourage the student in the program - without a

concentration, to complete a minor.   Students in either of the two

concentrations have specific subject requirements, and a student without a

concentration should have parallel requirements.  This parallel is provided

with the encouragement for a formal minor in another UD program.  The

proposed wording for this section is as follows:

Technical Specialization

15 credits of EGTE courses at the 300 or 400 level, plus

either a minor in support of the student's professional objective with 10

or more credits applied to this category, or 16 credits of EGTE or

engineering courses appropriate to the student's professional goals,

subject to approval by student's faculty advisor.  ..................31 to

25

 

The variation in credits for Technical Specialization does affect Technical

Support, so there is an added sentence, under T. Support, confirming that

the total for the two sections must sum to 40 credits.

 

Third concern: enrollment limitation for 300- and 400- level courses in EGTE

 

 

        The mechanism for registration enrollment control that is currently

available provides restriction options for each section of each course in

the MVS course registration system.  Our proposal is to show in the

registration booklet: "Open to junior and senior majors only" for the 300-

and 400- level courses.  With the current registration system, an instructor

can give permission to allow enrollment for a student outside of the

restriction.  That permission is then communicated to a staff person in the

department, who enters the 'enroll with permission' keystrokes.  This is the

plan that we want to communicate, not a new plan, different from current

practice.   So it would read:

 

        Enrollment in EGTE 300 and 400 level courses is limited to majors

with

junior or senior standing, or permission of the instructor.

 

Fourth concern:  Approved Technical Support Electives

 

        We propose using the same wording as shown for the other sections

where course choice is available: "appropriate to the student's professional

goals,  subject to approval by student's faculty advisor."

 

New electronic version --  a revised proposal is attached that includes the

changes summarized in this note. 

 

Thanks,

Ken Lomax

831-8875

 

 <<Catalog-Engr-Tech-Jan03.doc>>