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>>