Aerospace Engr: Engineering

1CRITERIA DIMENSION ONE 
(Centrality to Mission/Validation Context)

Context:
Describe why and when the program was created.
(150-word limit)

  The Aerospace Engineering Program (ARO), which trains engineers to design and build sophisticated aircraft and spacecraft, was created to help meet the needs of California's huge and multi-faceted aerospace industry for well-trained aerospace engineers. The program, which began operation in the fall 1957, is one of the founding departments of the College of Engineering and has been in continuous operation since then. Following Cal Poly Pomona's (CPP's) learn-by-doing paradigm, the Department produces engineers who are more-immediately useful to their employers than those from many other institutions. California's Aerospace industry has evolved during the nearly 50-year history of the Aerospace Engineering Department, but California and especially Southern California remain major centers for Aerospace research, development, design and testing of advanced aerospace vehicles in the world.

 

Comment:
The purpose of this question is to establish the history and context of the program-its original goal and/or focus.  We are interested in the evolution of the nature and character of the program.


Criterion 1.1: Internal and external demand for the program:      
Demand for a program will be recognized at different levels.  In some cases a program’s demand may be represented by the trend in the number of applicants each year or while other program’s demand may be better represented by recognizing courses taught as service or general education for the larger University population.


Indicator 1.1.1
Number of students enrolled in the program:

Fall 00 Fall 01 Fall 02 Fall 03 Fall 05
229.00 228.00 274.00 312.00 319.00

(Value provided by the Administration)   

Comment:
It is recognized that some programs categorize students according to major while other programs categorize students by options. Double majors do not constitute a significant number of students.


Indicator 1.1.2
External Demand- Total number of applications each year for the program: 

First time Students Fall     

00 01 02 03 05
  258.00   228.00   259.00   302.00   374.00

(Value provided by the Administration)   

First-time Students Winter

01 02 03 04 06
  6.00   5.00   6.00   2.00   (empty)

(Value provided by the Administration)   

First-time Students Spring

01 02 03 04 06
  6.00   3.00   3.00   (empty)   (empty)

(Value provided by the Administration)   

New Transfers Fall

00 01 02 03 05
  25.00   24.00   30.00   31.00   50.00

(Value provided by the Administration)   

New Transfers Winter

01 02 03 04 06
  6.00   6.00   11.00   6.00   13.00

(Value provided by the Administration)   

New Transfers Spring

01 02 03 04 06
  (empty)   (empty)   (empty)   (empty)   (empty)

(Value provided by the Administration)   

Comment:
These data may be used to understand the overall external demand for a program.


Indicator 1.1.3
Annual admits to the program:

First-time Students Fall    

00 01 02 03 05
  211.00   166.00   125.00   109.00   296.00

(Value provided by the Administration)   

First-time Students Winter              

01 02 03 04 06
  2.00   4.00   5.00   2.00   (empty)

(Value provided by the Administration)    

First-time Students Spring

01 02 03 04 06
  4.00   2.00   1.00   (empty)   (empty)

(Value provided by the Administration)   

New Transfers Fall

00 01 02 03 05
  14.00   8.00   17.00   17.00   37.00

(Value provided by the Administration)   

New Transfers Winter

01 02 03 04 06
  3.00   2.00   6.00   3.00   7.00

(Value provided by the Administration)   

New Transfers Spring

01 02 03 04 06
  4.00   3.00   4.00   (empty)   7.00

(Value provided by the Administration)   

Comment:
These data may be used to understand the show rate of students accepted/enrolled.


Indicator 1.1.4
New student enrollments in program:

First-time Students Fall    

00 01 02 03 05
  79.00   59.00   90.00   82.00   107.00

(Value provided by the Administration)   

First-time Students Winter              

01 02 03 04 06
  1.00   2.00   3.00   2.00   0.00

(Value provided by the Administration)   

First-time Students Spring              

01 02 03 04 06
  4.00   2.00   1.00   (empty)   1.00

(Value provided by the Administration)   

New Transfers Fall             

00 01 02 03 05
  8.00   6.00   16.00   12.00   13.00

(Value provided by the Administration)   

New Transfers Winter

01 02 03 04 06
  2.00   1.00   5.00   3.00   5.00

(Value provided by the Administration)   

New Transfers Spring

01 02 03 04 06
  3.00   2.00   3.00   (empty)   8.00

(Value provided by the Administration)   

Comment:
These data may be used to establish how effective a program is in enrolling perspective students. Low numbers could be used as a justification for additional resources. 


Indicator 1.1.5
List the degree options and the number of students in each. (Fall 2005)

No degree options available for this program.

(Value provided by the Administration)


Indicator 1.1.6
Internal Demand: (Fall 2005)

FTE taught in General Education
0.27

FTE taught in Service Courses
0.00

Total FTE Taught By Program
59.93

Comment:
Please note that service courses are defined as those courses consisting of 50% or more students outside the major. These data may be used to support a program’s internal demand as an integral part of the University Mission.

(Optional) If appropriate, please comment on the internal demand data
(100-word limit)

  The demand for the Aerospace Engineering Program has been generally on the rise for the past 10 years.


Indicator 1.1.7
Describe the profile of incoming students:  (Fall 2005)

First-time Student GPA

  3.30   3.27

Mean/Median GPA (Value provided by the Administration)

First-time Student SAT scores

  1,128.00   (empty)   (empty)

(Total Math and Verbal) Mean score/25th and 75 th percentile scores (Value provided by the Administration)

First-time Student ACT scores

  23.00   (empty)   (empty)

(Total Math and Verbal) Mean score/25 th and 75 th percentile scores (Value provided by the Administration)

First-time Student GRE scores

  (empty)   (empty)   (empty)

(Total Math and Verbal) Mean score/25 th and 75 th percentile scores (Value provided by the Administration)

First-time Student Gender
Male                         Female

93.00 % 7.00 %

(Value provided by the Administration)

First–time Student Ethnicity

Black, non-Hispanic 3.00 %
American Indian/Alaskan Native 0.00 %
Asian/Pacific Islander 30.00 %
Hispanic 21.00 %
White, non-Hispanic 36.00 %
Nonresident alien (empty) %
Race/ethnicity unknown 10.00 %

(Value provided by the Administration)

Transfer Student GPA

  2.75   2.78

Mean/Median GPA (Value provided by the Administration)

Transfer Student SAT scores

  (empty)   (empty)   (empty)

(Total Math and Verbal) Mean score/25th and 75 th percentile scores (Value provided by the Administration)

Transfer Student ACT scores

  (empty)   (empty)   (empty)

(Total Math and Verbal) Mean score/25th and 75 th percentile scores (Value provided by the Administration)

Transfer Student GRE scores

  (empty)    (empty)    (empty)

(Total Math and Verbal) Mean score/25% and 75% 25th and 75 th percentile (Value provided by the Administration)

Transfer Student Gender
Male                         Female

85.00 % 15.00 %

(Value provided by the Administration)

Transfer Student Ethnicity

Black, non-Hispanic 8.00 %
American Indian/Alaskan Native 0.00 %
Asian/Pacific Islander 15.00 %
Hispanic 38.00 %
White, non-Hispanic 38.00 %
Nonresident alien (empty) %
Race/ethnicity unknown 0.00 %

(Value provided by the Administration)

Comment:
These data are intended to provide information about both the diversity and excellence of students in the program. 

(Optional) If appropriate, please comment on the external demand data
(100-word limit)

  The Aerospace Engineering Program attracts a very diverse student population.


Criterion 1.2: Essentiality of the Program:

Indicator 1.2.1
How does this program contribute to meeting the educational needs of the campus, region, and/or state?
(200-word limit)  

  CPP's ARO program contributes directly to the "polytechnic" mission of the University, and is one of only two CSU programs that are pure dedicated Aerospace Engineering Departments, the other one being at Cal Poly SLO. CPP's accredited ARO Program is targeted to meet the needs of our very diverse student population, with the objective of training industry-ready aerospace engineers for the highly technical disciplines needed by Southern California's and California's huge aerospace industry and government laboratories. CPP's ARO Program meets these educational needs by developing engineers who are:

1. Able to apply their broad technical training to create technical solutions.
2. Able to participate in team aerospace or non-aerospace design projects to solve technically challenging problems with due attention to economic, environmental, health and safety considerations.
3. Able to communicate effectively in written and oral form.
4. Able to work in diverse teams.
5. Capable of being responsible citizens.
6. Able to pursue life-long learning.
 

Comment:
Please consider the fundamental knowledge and skills, what makes the program unique, and/or how it addresses employment or market needs.


 Criterion 1.3: Support of the polytechnic mission of the university and support for campus-wide programs and priorities      

Indicator 1.3.1
Describe how the program promotes “learn by doing” activities. Give evidence and examples of how these activities are embedded in the program curriculum.
(150-word limit)

  The Aerospace Engineering Department promotes learn by doing via the following mechanisms:
1. Laboratory classes: Sixteen laboratory classes spread across the curriculum which span from the freshmen through senior years.
2. National unmanned aircraft (UAV) design competitions: AIAA's design-build-fly, SAE's heavy-lift and AUVSI's autonomous unmanned airplane design. These are integrated into the curriculum via EGR 481-482 and/or Senior Project, ARO461-462.
3. Senior capstone aerospace vehicle design experience is integrated into the curriculum via ARO 491L, 492L and 493L. Projects consist of an aircraft or a spacecraft design and are usually in response to requests for proposal (RFPs) from AIAA and JPL.
4. In our freshman introductory aerospace courses, ARO101L, 102L and 103L, the students are divided into teams which build from kit remotely controlled airplanes and rockets to learn flight principles.
5. Our Senior Project sequence ARO 461-462 usually involve the design, construction, and testing of aerospace vehicles or components.

 

Indicator 1.3.2:
List Service Learning Courses and the communities or organizations that have been affected (See University definition of designated Service Learning Courses) (04-05)

The Aerospace Engineering Program has not yet developed any Service Learning (SL) Courses. Two of our faculty attended a SL workshop on campus to learn about SL concepts and to explore possible future work.  

Comment: 
In light of the Cal Poly Pomona mission to link theory and practice, please outline how this program integrates this goal. List or describe service learning courses.

Indicator 1.3.3
Describe how the program supports campus-wide priorities/initiatives such as Teacher Preparation, Honors Program, Life Long Learning and Interdisciplinary teaching.
(150-word limit)

The Department promotes life-long learning by encouraging students to attend graduate school, to participate in technical professional societies and to participate in one of a number of our hands-on design and build projects. Hundreds of aerospace engineers, many of them Department alumni, participated in our External Graduate Program that from 1984-2002, which was offered at a number of locations Southern California. As demand for this program increases, we are making plans to restart it. All of our students are encouraged to attend the weekly meetings of the professional aerospace society AIAA. At some of these meetings we have guest aerospace engineers from industry or government speaking on some of the latest developments in the field. Each year we also schedule some field trips for our students to aerospace companies and government labs. The Department also teaches EGR 481-482 courses, which attract students from multiple disciplines such as the ECE and ME Departments.  


2 CRITERIA DIMENSION TWO
(Quality/Outcomes)

Criterion 2.1: Learning assurance       
This section informs the Prioritization and Recovery Planning Committee of the program’s achievements in supporting the university goals to promote, enhance and/or improve: teaching, learning, and educational programs; research, scholarly, professional, and creative activities; support for students; the campus environment; and, to increase community involvement.

The information adds to a better understanding of the relationship of department activities to the success of the university in meeting its mission.

Indicator 2.1.1
Number of full-time & part-time faculty serving the program:  (Fall 05)

Number of full-time faculty
3.00

FTE lecturers
3.00

Please include changes or trends that may be relevant to these data.  Also describe policies and practices for role of lecturers that may be relevant to the discipline or market conditions.
(150-word limit)

For AY 05-06, the Aerospace Engineering Department had a total of 10 F/T and P/T faculty and lecturers as follows: 3 full-time tenured/tenure track faculty, one tenured FERP faculty teaching 1/3 time, one Visiting NASA Fellow teaching 1/2 time, and 5 P/T instructors. The latter are all practicing engineers that bring with them valuble experience from industry. The Department has just been authorized, and will be advertising shortly in national journals, to hire two F/T tenure-track faculty as early as January 2007.  

Indicator 2.1.2
Percentage of FTE instruction provided by tenure and tenure track faculty in the upper division/ graduate courses in the major: (Fall 05)

Tenure/Tenure Track (Upper division courses)
68.90 %

Lecturer (Upper division courses)
31.10 %

Tenure/Tenure Track (Graduate, Professional, Credential courses)
0.00 %

Lecturer (Graduate, Professional, Credential courses)
0.00 %

Please include changes or trends that may be relevant to these data.  Also describe policies and practices for
(150-word limit)

As seen in the above data, most of our U/D courses are taught by our tenured/tenure track faculty. At the present time some of our U/D courses are taught by P/T faculty who are experienced professionals. For example our visiting NASA Fellow, Dr. Trong Bui, is a senior aerospace engineer at NASA Dryden with a Ph.D. from Stanford Univ. and one of our P/T lecturers, Dr. Robert Davey, is a senior retired faculty from the Department with a Ph.D. from Cal Tech. We plan to hire two F/T tenure-track faculty for the next AY and thus eliminate our reliance on P/T lecturers for U/D courses. The Deparment will use P/T lecturers primarily for L/D introductory courses that have been well developed by our senior faculty and under their supervision.  

Indicator 2.1.3
Student-faculty ratio in the program: (Fall 05)
16.40 To 1

Comment:
It is recognized that some faculty members serve multiple programs. The Dean will assist programs in establishing the ratio.

Indicator 2.1.4
Major/Faculty (Serialized Faculty) Ratio: (Fall 05)
118.00 To 1

Comment:
It is recognized that some faculty members serve multiple majors.  The Dean will assist programs in establishing the ratio.

Indicator 2.1.5
Average class size: (Fall 05)

  Lecture Lab Activity Supervisory
Remedial 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Lower Division 0.00 35.00 30.50 0.00
Upper Division 26.00 21.33 0.00 3.67
Graduate 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Please provide comments about specific class sizes that may be related to accreditation or space limitations.
(100-word limit)

As demand for the Aerospace Engineering Program continues to grow, we have been adding more sections to both L/D and U/D courses. The U/D courses which were offered in only one section are now splitting into two sections to keep enrollment to about 25 for lecture and below 20 for laboratory classes. The number of sections of our freshman courses has grown to 4 this AY and is expected to rise to 5 this fall quarter.  

Indicator 2.1.6
Describe the status of student learning outcome assessment programs.  
(150-word limit)

The primary methods utilized to assess achievement of learning outcomes are:
1. Comprehensive Examinations:
a. ARO 490L Aerosciences Course Comprehensive Final Exam
b. University Graduation Writing Test (GWT)
2. Industry/Government Reviews:
a. Capstone Senior Design Course's annual Preliminary Design Review (PDR) and Critical Design Review (CDR)
b. Aerospace Industry Action Council's (IAC) quarterly consultations (3/AY)
3. Questionnaire:
a. Annual Graduating Senior Exit Survey
b. Periodic survey of employers of our graduates
These tools of assessment were well received by ABET (accreditation) and are administered on an annual basis.
 

Comment:
Describe whether you are developing a plan, implementing a plan, evaluating data, or using data to affect the program.

Indicator 2.1.7
Describe how the program’s curriculum or teaching pedagogy has changed as a result of internal or external assessment. 
(200-word limit)

The results of the assessment tools listed above are incorporated into the Aerospace Engineering Program in various ways. Here are some examples of what has been done:
1. Modifying existing courses
2. Introducing new courses
3. Adding a lab component to a lecture course
4. Incorporating visual aids
5. Inviting guest lecturers
6. Taking field trips
7. Adding oral/written presentations
 

Comment:
You may include interactions with stakeholders, advisory boards, etc.


Criterion 2.2: Preparation of students for a diverse/global community 
Indicator 2.2.1
Describe courses/experiences related to global and/or diversity issues that are available to students.
(150-word limit)           

Courses related to global and/or diversity issues are covered in 36 units of required General Education courses in the Humanities and Social Sciences. In addition, the Aerospace Engineering Department has a very diverse student body who work together on a number of team projects from their freshman through senior years. Examples include:

1. Senior Design sequence of 3 courses
2. Senior Project sequence of 2 courses
3. Three national UAV competitions
4. Senior Aerodynamics & Propulsion Lab.
5. Junior Fluid Dynamics & Heat Xfr. Lab.
6. Freshman Intro. to Aeronautics UAV project
7. Freshman Intro. to Astronautics Rocket project

Comment:
These could be on or off campus experiences international travel etc. 

Indicator 2.2.2
Diversity of the Faculty:

Male (Fall 05)
100.00 %

Female (Fall 05)
0.00 %

Black, non-Hispanic (Fall 05)
0.00 %

American Indian/Alaskan Native (Fall 05)
0.00 %

Asian/Pacific Islander (Fall 05)
0.00 %

Hispanic (Fall 05)
0.00 %

White, non-Hispanic (Fall 05)
67.00 %

Nonresident alien (Fall 05)
0.00 %

Race/ethnicity unknown (Fall 05)
33.00 %

Please describe policies and practices or current efforts to address the diversity of the faculty serving the program.
(150-word limit)

The Aerospace Engineering Department has a rather diverse faculty already. Here are some examples:

1. One of our P/T faculty is a female Hispanic
2. One of our F/T faculty is originally from Greece
3. One of our F/T faculty is Jewish
4. One of our F/T faculty is originally from Iran

In our past faculty searches, the Department has been and again will be actively seeking to recruit diverse faculty members.
 


Criterion 2.3: Faculty research and creative activity

Indicator 2.3.1
List faculty peer reviewed publications and creative activities: (Years 03-04, 04-05, 05-06)

Department wide

1. Prof. Gabriel Georgiades:

a. Attended the Aerospace Testing Expo 2005 Conference
b. AIAA Offices held: Regional Chair, Chair-Elect, VC of Education and Advisory Committee representative, "Evolution of Flight" Program Officer

2. Prof. Donald Edberg:

a. Each year, as part of national competitions, he supervises 3 teams of students in design, construction and flight of unmanned airplanes, and usually travels with them and serves as the pilot for the competition.
b. He has twice edited the "Year-in-Review" article for "Structural Dynamics" for the national publication: AIAA's Aerospace America

3. Prof. Ali Ahmadi:

Each year travels to AIAA's Aerospace Sciences Conference in Reno (one of the world's largest gatherings of aerospace professionals in the world) to attend the meeting and to participate in the annual meeting of the Aerospace Department Chairs Association (ADCA)

Comment:
This information should be available in the annual report.

Indicator 2.3.2
Describe any resources available for professional travel excluding resources made available by the College Dean, Faculty Center, Research and Graduate Studies, or President’s travel funds. (Years 03-04, 04-05, 05-06)
(150-word limit)

In addition to University and College of Engineering resources, the Aerospace Engineering Department has a discretionary fund at the CPP Foundation that can be used for some additional professional travel for our faculty members. This account has maintained a sufficient balance for the 03-04, 04-05 and 05-06 AYs for such purposes.  

Indicator 2.3.3
Describe policies, practices and resources for encouraging professional, scholarly and creative activities.
(150-word limit) 

All of our faculty are memebers of the aerospace engineering professional society: American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics (AIAA), and receive their monthly magazine Aerospace America. Our faculty also receive other professional periodicals/journals and are thus informed of upcoming conferences, short courses and exhibitions in their fields. At our department meetings early in the AY, faculty are encouraged to submit their travel requests for the upcoming AY, so that activities can be prioritized and budgeted. The faculty also receive all on campus notifications of available travel funds and are encouraged to apply for such funds.  


Criterion 2.4: Quality of student advising       

Indicator 2.4.1
Describe policies and practices for academic advising within the program.                      
(150-word limit)

Each Aerospace Engineering student is assigned to a faculty member and are encouraged to see their advisors anytime during office hours. The University places academic HOLDs on students on a quarterly basis if the student's GPA is 2.2 or below and if the student is on probation. It is then mandatory that the student see his/her advisor for academic advising before the HOLD is removed. This involves filling out an "Advising Worksheet" and a discussion of how to improve his/her GPA.

Indicator 2.4.2
Graduation rates: by gender and ethnicity:

Values for indicator 2.4.2, graduation rates by gender and ethnicity, are empty for all programs. Graduation rates for first-time freshmen and transfer students are provided for undergraduate programs only. These data were omitted from the reports because it was not feasible to assemble them from existing systems at this time, due primarily to conversion/cross-over issues between Banner and PeopleSoft.

First time freshman 6-year graduation rate

43.00 %

(Value provided by the Administration)

Ethnicity

Black, non-Hispanic (empty) %
American Indian/Alaskan Native (empty) %
Asian/Pacific Islander (empty) %
Hispanic (empty) %
White, non-Hispanic (empty) %
Nonresident alien (empty) %
Race/ethnicity unknown (empty) %

(Value provided by the Administration)

Transfer Student 3-year graduation rate

10.00 %

(Value provided by the Administration)

Ethnicity

Black, non-Hispanic (empty) %
American Indian/Alaskan Native (empty) %
Asian/Pacific Islander (empty) %
Hispanic (empty) %
White, non-Hispanic (empty) %
Nonresident alien (empty) %
Race/ethnicity unknown (empty) %

(Value provided by the Administration)

Indicator 2.4.3
Number and percentage of Students “At Risk”:

Fall 00 Fall 01 Fall 02 Fall 03 Fall 05
73.00 31.88% 67.00 29.39% 92.00 33.58% 104.00 33.33%   102.00 31.97%

(Value provided by the Administration)

Describe any policies or procedures related specifically to at-risk students (150-word limit)

As stated above, students on probation or at risk, are assigned one faculty advisor (at present Prof. Gabriel Georgiades) in the Department that handles all probationary students. Advising is more in-depth and a plan is produced showing the student different GPA scenarios and what affect specific course loads and grades will have on the GPA. The Aerospace advisor utilizes a computerized GPA program/advising worksheet.  

Comment:
Below 2.2 Cal Poly Pomona GPA for undergraduates and below 3.0 GPA for graduates

Indicator 2.4.4
Number of degrees granted:

00 01 02 03 05
16.00 16.00 7.00 38.00 18.00

(Value provided by the Administration)

Indicator 2.4.5
Describe current opportunities for students to apply knowledge in the program through; internships, summer programs, research opportunities, co-op, part-time jobs relating to university course work, teaching associates, etc. (150-word limit)

The Aerospace Engineering Department encourages its students to participate in every possible way to gain practical experience in engineering. We use our extensive network of industry and government contacts to provide internships and summer programs to our students. Some student research projects have been supported by industry, such as construction of complex wing models and wind tunnel testing of the same. A small number of student assistant/grader positions are also available to superior students.

 

Indicator 2.4.6
Describe current structures/processes provided by the program to facilitate student job placement. (150-word limit)

In addition to the annual University Career Fair, the Engineering Career Fair and students posting resumes on Monster Trak, the Aerospace Department maintains close contact with our alumni and our Industry Action Council (IAC). They inform us of specific employment opportunities, which are then posted, sent to students via email and announced in aerospace classes. The Department also holds an annual Alumni and Student Awards Banquet attended by alumni and members of industry, where a resume book (now CD) is available for our industry contacts to pick up. Another annual event is the Project Symposium Day in late May, where senior student team projects are showcased and some of them (Senior Design) are reviewed and critiqued by a panel of judges from industry and government. This is another opportunity for our students to directly interact with potential employers.  


Criterion 2.5: Contribution to the sense of community and the intellectual quality of the campus

Indicator 2.5.1
Describe the current co-curricular and extra activities for students supported by the program (i.e.: clubs, social events, performances.)
(150-word limit)

1. AIAA's Design-Build-Fly national competition
2. SAE's Heavy-Lift national competition
3. AUVSI Autonomous UAV national competition
4. Annual Aerospace Alumni & Student Awards Banquet
5. AIAA Weekly Meetings, some with guest speakers from industry/government
6. SGT - annual Initiation Luncheon
7. Annual Engineering Open House during Engineer's Week activities
8. Several field trips each year to industry and govenment labs
9. AIAA End of Year BBQ

Indicator 2.5.2
List speakers, symposia, workshops, etc. provided by the program over the past year. 

The Department hosts guest speakers from industry and govenment at some of the weekly meetings of AIAA and in some of our UD courses. During AY 05-06, we had:
1. Dr. Trong Bui of NASA Dryden spoke on his Rocket Research work.
2. Dr. Trina Ray of JPL spoke on Project Cassini's Mission to Saturn.
3. Dr. Miriam Rodon of NASA Dryden spoke on NASA's Student Research and Education Opportunities
4. Dr. Hany Farran of Cal Poly's Civil Engineering Department spoke on the Histroy of Aviation and Flight Sciences
In addition to these we had three guest speakers in two of our UD courses and some of our UD students were taken on 3 field trips to:
1. Edwads AFB Flight Test Center
2. NASA Dryden Flight Test Center
3. Air Force Research Laboratory
 


3 CRITERIA DIMENSION THREE
(Efficiency)

Criterion 3.1: Utilization of physical space            

Indicator 3.1.1
Describe the general space needs of the program and current utilization of space excluding temporary relocations:
(200-word limit each field)
                                                                                                                   
Instructional Space (Classrooms/Labs)

The Aerospace Engineering Department has approximately 7350 sq. ft. of laboratory space of which 1450 sq. ft. are shared laboratory space with other programs. Assigned laboratory space is utilizied for 16 laboratory courses. Classroom space is approxmately 906 sq. ft. which are also shared facilities. The Department is sorely in need of additional laboratory space for the new UAV Lab.

 

Non-instructional Space

The Department office and faculty offices encompass approximatley 839 sq. ft. which facilitates three full-time faculty members, Department Coordinator and 7 part-time faculty members.

In addition, the Department Technician office and technical suport shop encompass approximately 340 sq. ft. of space.
 

Comment:
The PRPC is interested in understanding the approximate amount of space that is currently used to run the program.  Are the spaces shared spaces that may be used by other programs throughout the day, week or quarter.  Does the program utilize dedicated space that is used by the program exclusively by one program or class and is not open to other programs due to scheduling, unique equipment or security requirements? Do programs share non-instructional spaces? Do tenure/tenure track faculty members share office space?


Criterion 3.2: Utilization of human resources           

Indicator 3.2.1
Percent of total FTE taught by full-time vs. part-time faculty:

Percent of total undergraduate FTES by part-time (Fall 05)
(empty) %

Percent of total graduate FTES by part-time (Fall 05)
(empty) %

Percent of total undergraduate FTES by full-time (Fall 05)
(empty) %

Percent of total graduate FTES by full-time (Fall 05)
(empty) %

Comment:
The PRPC is interested in looking at how much of an individual program’s curriculum is being taught by full-time and part-time faculty.  The committee does not have a bias about whether a high ratio of one or the other is preferred or if a balance is ideal.  The intent of the ratio is to provide a context within which the committee can make comparisons.

(Optional) If appropriate, comment on the average FTE taught. 100-word limit

 

Indicator 3.2.2
List the number and nature of administrative support staff dedicated to the program.

Number: 1.00
Nature: (empty)

Comment:
The PRPC recognizes that the number of administrative staff is not necessarily established by a program, nor is the number of support staff necessarily an indicator of the quality of a program.  The committee is interested in looking at the number of staff (i.e. Administrative Coordinator) that may be directly assigned to a program.  If a staff person is shared between programs estimate the amount or ratio as a percentage of the assignment of the staff person to the program based on FTES. 

Indicator 3.2.3
Number of technical and instructional support staff.
1.00

Comment:
The PRPC recognizes that technical and instructional staff members are often shared between programs within a department or a college. Estimate the amount or ratio as a percentage of the assignment of the staff person to the program based on FTES in the individual programs supported. 

(Optional) If appropriate, comment on the administrative structure of your staff. 100-word limit

The Aerospace Engineering Department has one full-time Administrative Office Coordinator who is responsible for the day to day activities of the Department. She spends some of her time, on a need basis, to assist across the College of Engineering.

The Aerospace Department has one full-time Department Technician, responsible for the maintenance of all the laboratory equipment and computers in the Department. He spends about 30% of his time with computer related issue across the College of Engineering.
 


Criterion 3.3: Utilization of technology           

Indicator 3.3.1
Describe the use of computer technology to enhance course delivery and/or course administration.(150-word limit)

In addition to the University's and College's use of computer technology for administration, the Department uses computer technology for instruction. Here are some examples:
1. Since engineering is a technically rich field requiring the use of equations, graphs, plots, and geometric layouts, a lot of complex graphics need to be shown to the students for improved understanding. Sometimes, these items are more easily projected and shown to students than sketched by the instructor on the board. Some of our classrooms are now equipped with PC/VCR/DVD/projectors to make this possible. also, spreadsheets can be modified in real-time to see immediately the effect of the change of an engineering parameter. In addition, digitized movies and animations can greatly enhance the comprehension of many engineering concepts.
2. Our students, faculty and staff often use email to communicate quickly.
3. In some of our labs, students run experiments and take data on computers. This can make possible taking of much data in a short time. The students then use computers to reduce their data and prepare their reports.
 

Comment:
The PRPC is interested in how technology is being utilized by the program.  This use includes regular in-class presentation technologies and course administration (i.e. Blackboard, WebCT, or similar) as well as on-line materials and communications. 


Criterion 3.4: Utilization of time 

Indicator 3.4.1
Describe the current use of alternative scheduling (i.e. evenings, weekends, school breaks and summer) to facilitate or improve student academic progress. (150-word limit)

The Aerospace Engineering Department does not currently use alternative scheduling methods. However, we seek to schedule our courses in such a way as to avoid conflicts between them. This enables ARO majors to take their major courses in the recommended order, thereby facilitating student academic progress.  


Criterion 3.5: Management of financial resources   

Indicator 3.5.1
Program teaching cost: (Year 05-06)

Cost per WTU
$ (empty)

Cost per FTES
$ (empty)

Comment:
The PRPC recognizes that this cost changes over time depending on the number of students and the faculty members teaching in the program.  There is no target value rather the value serves as context.

Indicator 3.5.2
Current total operating expenditures: (Year 05-06)
$ 415,472.00

Indicator 3.5.3
External funding generated: (Year, 04-05)

Cash Gifts
$ (empty)

Gifts in Kind
$ (empty)

Annual Fund
$ (empty)

Comment:
The PRPC is interested in understanding how well supported a program may be by ongoing fundraising efforts at the program, College or University levels. 

Indicator 3.5.4
Other revenues generated by the program per Serialized Tenured and Tenure Track faculty.

Grant and Contract Activity

02-03 03-04 04-05
$ (empty) $ (empty) $ (empty)

Indirect Cost Recovery for Fiscal Year

02-03 03-04 04-05
$ (empty) $ (empty) $ (empty)

Open University

03-04 04-05 05-06
$ (empty) $ (empty) $ (empty)

Comment:
Include in this area research grants that sponsor research activities and or release time.  Also include sponsored classes and revenue generated through continuing education or Open University classes that is reimbursed to the program.

(Optional) If appropriate, comment on the resource indicators above.
(150-word limit)

 


4 CRITERIA DIMENSION FOUR
(Opportunity Analysis of the Program)

Criterion 4.1: Opportunities for growth or enhancement in meeting the University Mission

Indicator 4.1.1
Describe how and in priority order areas you would change your program to greater enhance or facilitate the University Mission if your program’s resources were increased permanently.

  • Faculty
  • Staff
  • Equipment
  • Recruiting
  • Operating Budget
  • Facilities
  • Other

(300-word limit)

1. Faculty: We would be better able to meet the needs of our growing student body, if 2-3 more F/T tenure-track faculty could be hired for the Department. Enrollment in the ARO Program has more than doubled in the past 10 years.

2. Equipment: We would be better able to deliver a quality education for our students, if we had the following resources to:

a. Upgrade the computer hardware and software in the ARO Computer Lab, Room 17-2103, once every 5 years.
b. Add several high-end PCs and aerospace design software to Room 17-2664 for use by our Senior Design students and provide periodic upgrades to keep them current.
c. Add a PC/VCR/DVD/Projector to our primary teaching classroom 17-1211.
d. Provide wireless internet connectivity in Building 17.
e. Provide laser printers for some of our F/S who need one in their office.

3. Operating Budget: We would be better able to provide a quality education for our students, if we had the funds for:

a. Replacing and/or upgrading the laboratory equipment in the Aerospace Structures, Fluids and Subsonic and Supersonic Wind Tunnel Labs to keep them current.
b. Student hands-on activities, such as unmanned aircraft (UAV), solid-fueled rockets and spacecraft projects such as MICROSAT.
c. Transporting our students for local field trips and for their Senior Design presentations to industry and government lab sites.
d. Student assistants/graders needed for some of our faculty.

4. Facilities: We would be better able to provide a quality education for our students, if we had:

a. Laboratory space and model fabrication equipment for our new UAV Lab. and for the growing number of other student hands-on projects in the Department.
b. Lockers for our students in Bldg. 17 to store their books and personal items.
c. A clean room for MICROSAT fabrication and assembly.
 

Comment:
For each program, briefly describe what you would do if you had a permanent increase in state funding and why. For example, it could be that hiring more serialized faculty is the most pressing need to meet and sustain the demands of growth and insure student success. Perhaps new laboratory equipment and lab assistance is needed to replace outdated equipment, maintain quality and keep the curriculum relevant. Faculty travel, release time for a vital department need, or any other use of funds could be part of your proposal.