Mechanical Engr: Engineering

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

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

  The Mechanical Engineering program was created at the conception of the College of Engineering in Fall, 1957 to serve the needs of local and state high-tech industries and the people that work or wish to work in those areas. Mechanical Engineering is one of the most general branches of engineering. A mechanical engineer requires a broad knowledge in many fields. The breadth and flexibility of a mechanical engineer's education provides a wide choice of careers and allows movement into a variety of engineering areas to better meet the challenges of an ever changing world. Mechanical Engineering's contributions are continually evolving to meet new challenges in technical areas such as aerospace, environmental, energy systems, machine design and manufacturing, biotechnology, robotics, and others. Mechanical Engineers work in industry, business, government, law and medicine. They are involved in research, development, design, testing, production, operation, maintenance, marketing, sales, administration, management and education.  

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
632.00 659.00 734.00 820.00 938.00

(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
  317.00   342.00   462.00   485.00   693.00

(Value provided by the Administration)   

First-time Students Winter

01 02 03 04 06
  2.00   15.00   4.00   (empty)   1.00

(Value provided by the Administration)   

First-time Students Spring

01 02 03 04 06
  5.00   2.00   5.00   (empty)   1.00

(Value provided by the Administration)   

New Transfers Fall

00 01 02 03 05
  100.00   132.00   125.00   118.00   182.00

(Value provided by the Administration)   

New Transfers Winter

01 02 03 04 06
  30.00   24.00   23.00   37.00   59.00

(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
  249.00   267.00   261.00   225.00   527.00

(Value provided by the Administration)   

First-time Students Winter              

01 02 03 04 06
  2.00   11.00   4.00   (empty)   1.00

(Value provided by the Administration)    

First-time Students Spring

01 02 03 04 06
  3.00   2.00   2.00   (empty)   1.00

(Value provided by the Administration)   

New Transfers Fall

00 01 02 03 05
  51.00   71.00   56.00   54.00   129.00

(Value provided by the Administration)   

New Transfers Winter

01 02 03 04 06
  22.00   15.00   12.00   24.00   26.00

(Value provided by the Administration)   

New Transfers Spring

01 02 03 04 06
  11.00   27.00   16.00   (empty)   20.00

(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
  114.00   130.00   186.00   176.00   224.00

(Value provided by the Administration)   

First-time Students Winter              

01 02 03 04 06
  1.00   10.00   4.00   (empty)   1.00

(Value provided by the Administration)   

First-time Students Spring              

01 02 03 04 06
  2.00   2.00   2.00   (empty)   0.00

(Value provided by the Administration)   

New Transfers Fall             

00 01 02 03 05
  42.00   57.00   42.00   45.00   79.00

(Value provided by the Administration)   

New Transfers Winter

01 02 03 04 06
  19.00   13.00   9.00   18.00   25.00

(Value provided by the Administration)   

New Transfers Spring

01 02 03 04 06
  9.00   23.00   14.00   1.00   18.00

(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)

Degree optionsNo. Students
Energy Systems Engineer1
Mechanical Engineer37

(Value provided by the Administration)


Indicator 1.1.6
Internal Demand: (Fall 2005)

FTE taught in General Education
0.00

FTE taught in Service Courses
0.00

Total FTE Taught By Program
383.53

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 internal demand for the Mechanical Engineering program is evidenced by the number of courses taken by students from other engineering departments. The ME program has in the past and continues to act as the primary provider of service courses for the College of Engineering. In addition to the MEs, students from Chemical, Civil, Industrial and Manufacturing, Aerospace, and Electrical and Computing Engineering take some of the following courses: ME 214, ME 215, ME 217, ME 218, ME 301 and ME 311.


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

First-time Student GPA

  3.31   3.33

Mean/Median GPA (Value provided by the Administration)

First-time Student SAT scores

  1,114.00   (empty)   (empty)

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

First-time Student ACT scores

  25.00   (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

95.00 % 5.00 %

(Value provided by the Administration)

First–time Student Ethnicity

Black, non-Hispanic 5.00 %
American Indian/Alaskan Native 0.00 %
Asian/Pacific Islander 25.00 %
Hispanic 23.00 %
White, non-Hispanic 39.00 %
Nonresident alien (empty) %
Race/ethnicity unknown 8.00 %

(Value provided by the Administration)

Transfer Student GPA

  3.08   3.10

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

88.00 % 12.00 %

(Value provided by the Administration)

Transfer Student Ethnicity

Black, non-Hispanic 3.00 %
American Indian/Alaskan Native 1.00 %
Asian/Pacific Islander 26.00 %
Hispanic 33.00 %
White, non-Hispanic 27.00 %
Nonresident alien (empty) %
Race/ethnicity unknown 10.00 %

(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)

  Mechanical Engineering attracts a diverse cross-section of students to its program. These represent some of the best students coming to Cal Poly Pomona. As an example, the 4-year University Scholarships have been awarded to 17 incoming students, three from engineering, and two of those are Mechanical Engineering students. The number of new students entering the Mechanical Engineering program has approximately doubled in the last five years. The department would like to attract more female students to the program.


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)  

  The Mechanical Engineering program contributes to the advancement of learning and knowledge by linking theory and practice through a blend of lecture courses mated with laboratory experiences. The program prepares a diverse student population to engage in life long learning and careers in a changing, multicultural world.

Industry actively recruits students from our program because of their history of finding successful engineers here. They prefer to hire engineers from our program because our students are well prepared to enter and immediately contribute in their companies.

Students from the ME program score very well on the national Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) exam, the first step in professional registration. In recent years, Cal Poly Pomona ME students have scored above both the state and national averages on the FE exams.

Examples in which the program addresses the goals of the campus as follows:
1. Faculty participation in workshops/conferences to promote excellence in teaching, learning, and educational programs
2. Pursuit of external funding sources to enhance effective acquisition, planning, and management of resources
3. On-going faculty consulting activities, and research and development, continues to promote and enhance research, scholarly, professional, and creative activities
4. Continued upgrading of the program¿s lab facilities, use of pro-active academic advising and orchestration of student/faculty social activities to enhance support for students
5. Use of collaborative student interdisciplinary projects to improve the campus environment
6. Use of Service Learning projects, advisory committees and volunteer lecturers to increase community involvement
 

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 "learn by doing" philosophy is realized by the Mechanical Engineering program in many facets including the use of labs to support lectures, the use of captone design experiences for senior level projects, the participation of students in clubs such as the Society of Automotive Engineering, American Society of Mechanical Engineering and the Solar Vehicles clubs. The following is a listing of the required lab courses embedded within the program which promote the "learn by doing" pedagogy: ME 100L, ME 224L, ME 232A, ME 233L, ME 313L, ME 325L, ME 350L, ME 406A, ME 418L, ME 435L, ME 439L, EGR 481/EGR 492, MFE 126L, MFE 201L, CHM 121L, CHM 122L, PHY 131L, PHY 133L, ECE 231L, (cf. Cal Poly 2005-2007 catalog). This partial listing totals 22 units of the undergraduate degree experience, comprising approximately 11% of the student's degree requirements.  

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)

"FIRST Robotics: A Service Learning Partnership with West Covina High School," Travis Covington, Kevin Gasperini, Kirk Oden, Fall 2004-Spring 2005. Academic advisors Dr. Anderson, Dr. Mariappan, Dr. Fan. West Covina high school students were mentored by undergraduate Mechanical Engineering students to foster engineering studies in the K-12 and to promote partnerships with Cal Poly Pomona.

Mariappan, Fan and Monemi, 2005, Service Learning Projects - Design for Extreme Affordability, Service Learning Conference, Cal Poly Pomona, CA.
 

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 ME department has had two faculty members involved in the Honors program. Campus-wide life long learning and interdisciplinary teaching is supported directly by the ME program (largest program on campus) requiring our students to take approximately 37% of their degree in GE courses. Teacher preparation is supported in the capacity of our faculty attending and offering workshops, engaging in faculty development center activities, etc.  


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
17.00

FTE lecturers
12.00

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)

The Mechanical Engineering program relies heavily on support of it's teaching load by non-tenured or tenure-track faculty. The program has a total of 15 TT and tenured faculty as of Winter Quarter 2006. The program also has 3 FT lecturers; two teaching 15 units and one teaching and supervising the student projects lab. In addition, there are 10 PT lecturers teaching in spring 2006. FT and PT lecturers are great for the efficiency of the program; however, they do not advise students nor contribute to the advancement of the program as do the T and TT faculty.  

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)
(empty) %

Lecturer (Upper division courses)
(empty) %

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

Lecturer (Graduate, Professional, Credential courses)
(empty) %

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

The BSME program has witnessed amazing growth in student enrollment over the last five years. Although the program successfully recruited three tenure-track faculty members last year, there is an overall deficiency in the availability of faculty to adequately support the growing demand. Planned retirements and faculty development activities will continue to exacerbate the faculty shortage. Students enrollments are expected to continue to increase, therefore additional faculty need to be hired.  

Indicator 2.1.3
Student-faculty ratio in the program: (Fall 05)
18.50 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)
113.80 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 812.00 557.00 0.00 8.00
Upper Division 691.00 120.00 0.00 31.00
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)

Laboratory classes in Mechanical Engineering have traditionally been limited to 16 students per lab due to limitations in equipment. The recent increase in students has put a burden on the lab courses which can not be adequately supported. Additional equipment, technician support and faculty are needed to improve the situation.  

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

In Fall 2005, the Mechanical Engineering program was successfully visited and reviewed by it¿s accrediting agency, ABET. A full six year accreditation is expected. ABET uses an outcomes based assessment process. The ME program uses ABET input along with its Industry Advisory Committee feedback as well as results from the national Fundamentals of Engineering Exam as metrics to monitor program quality and integrity. The ME program has had a plan in effect for seven years and has made adjustments several times based upon assessment data.  

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)

Based upon assessment results, the BSME program¿s pedagogy did not need overall significant changes. However, some implementation details were refined. The curriculum has been modified to place emphasis on the industrial trend of increased systems level engineering. Examples of this include the mandatory enrollment in ME 439, ME 406/A among other courses. In addition, ABET assessment has encouraged the department to add "Design Experiments" as an experiential topic in two required classes (ME 340 and ME 435).  

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 which Mechanical Engineering program students are required to take include the following:
EGR 402 Ethical Considerations in Technology and Applied Science (4)
EGR 403 Capital Allocation Theory (4)
GE Area C2 Philosophy and Civilization (4)
GE Area D2 Principles of Economics EC 201 or EC 202 (4)
GE Area D3 Political Sociology SOC/PLS 390 (4)
GE Area E Lifelong Understanding (4)
EGR 481/EGR 482 Capstone Senior Design Experience (2/2)
These 28 units comprise approximately 14% of the undergraduate ME student¿s degree.

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

Indicator 2.2.2
Diversity of the Faculty:

Male (Fall 05)
93.00 %

Female (Fall 05)
7.00 %

Black, non-Hispanic (Fall 05)
0.00 %

American Indian/Alaskan Native (Fall 05)
0.00 %

Asian/Pacific Islander (Fall 05)
28.00 %

Hispanic (Fall 05)
0.00 %

White, non-Hispanic (Fall 05)
71.00 %

Nonresident alien (Fall 05)
0.00 %

Race/ethnicity unknown (Fall 05)
0.00 %

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

The ME program currently has 2 female faculty members - one full-time tenured and one part-time. Dr. Angela Shih has chaired the department search committee for the past three searches and will again chair this year's search efforts. The search procedure follows university guidelines. The full time and FERP faculty include one Russian, three Iranians, one Indian (from India), one Korean, and three Chinese. The department seeks to hire the most qualified person for the open position.

 


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

Due to space limitations, below is a small sampling of program activities.

D.B. Flowers and K.R. Anderson "Numerical Simulation of Conduction Heat Transfer in a System of Slowly Rotating Concentric Shells Separated by Small Annular Gap Distances", Numerical Heat Transfer, Part A, Vol. 46, Issue 9: 1-17, 2004.

Richard Getze and Kevin R. Anderson "Boundary Layer Analysis Toolkit" Computational Fluid Dynamics Journal 13(1):11 April 2004 pp. 100-109.

"Using NI-ELVIS in the ME 340 and ME 435 Labs in Mechanical Engineering" Dr. Kevin R. Anderson and Dr. Angela Shih, ASEE PSW Regional Conference, April 20-21, 2006, California State Polytechnic University at Pomona.

"Electrochromic Radiators for Microspacecraft Thermal Control", Anthony Paris and Kevin Anderson, NASA JPL, SSC05-VIII-11, 19th Annual AIAA Utah State University Conference on Small Satellites, Logan, UT, August 8-11, 2005

Fan, Mariappan, and Monemi, 2005, Enhancing Experiential learning Pedagogy with Interdisciplinary Engineering Service learning Activities , NCUT, Beijing , China

Mariappan, Fan and Monemi, 2005, Enhancing Authentic Learning Experiences Through Service Learning, ASEE Pacific South West Regional Conference, Loyola Marymont, Los Angels, CA

Mariappan, Fan and Monemi, 2005, Engineering Service Learning and Entrepreneurship Opportunities, NCIIA 9th Annual Conference, San Diego, CA

Mariappan, Shih, and Schrader, 2004, Use of Scenario Based Learning in Teaching Statics, Session 2666, ASEE Annual Conference, Salt Lake City , Utah.

Shih, and Mariappan, 2004, Scenario-Based Learning Approach in Improving Undergraduate Engineering Education, ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, Anaheim, CA, November.

Ramachandran, Farrell and Mariappan, 2000, A Multidisciplinary Control Systems Laboratory , ASEE Annual Conference and Exhibition, St. Louis , Missouri , Session 1526, June 18-21.
Research Related

Mariappan, 2006, Concept Evaluation Using Payoff Tables , submitted for ASME Design Technical Conf., Philadelphia , PA

Mariappan, 2006, An Interactive Software Tool for Developing E-Learning Simulations , submitted for ASME Computers and Information in Engineering Conf., Philadelphia , PA

M.S. Qatu, and A.G. Rezaei, "Industrial Based Senior Projects in Engineering Curriculum," International Journal of Innovation and learning, Vol. 1, No4, 2004.

Rezaei, A.G," Problem Solving and Analysis Tools," invited speaker, Specialists Annual Technical Conference, Toyota Motor Manufacturing West Virginia (TMMWV), Horicane, West Virginia, October 10, 2004.

Rezaei, A.G., " Teaching engineering concepts through the use of modern computational tools," Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education/NCS Annual Spring Conference , Kalamazo, Michigan, April 1-3, 2004.

Rezaei, A.G., M. Sathyamoorthy, " Industry/University Partnership-Challenges and Lessons Learned," Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education/NCS Annual Spring Conference , Kalamazo, Michigan, April 1-3, 2004.

Rezaei, A.G., Davari, A," Teaching Vibration and Control courses using Animation, Simulation, and Experimentation," accepted to the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, Portland, Oregon, June 12-15, 2005.

"Use of Scenario-Based Learning Approach in Teaching Statics" Angela Shih and Jawa Mariappan, ASEE National Conference Proceeding, Salt Lake City, Utah, June 20-24, 2004.

"Scenario-Based Learning and Multimedia in Improving Engineering Education" Angela Shih and Jawa Mariappan, 2004 ASME International Design Engineering Technical Conferences Proceeding, Salt Lake City, Utah, Sep.28-Oct. 02, 2004.

Dr. Xue and Dr. Kim can add additional publications to this list.

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)

Dr. M.T. Shelton, ¿Statics & Dynamics Symposium¿, Key Largo, FL, Fall 2004. Paid by McGraw-Hill
Dr. Henry Xue, Review of NSF Proposals, Washington DC

NASA Fellowships via ASEE have been awarded:
Dr. Angela Shih, Physics group at JPL Pasadena, June-August, 2003, $12,000
Dr. Kevin R. Anderson, Thermal and Cryogenic Engineering group JPL, Pasadena, June 2004-August 2004.

See department annual reports for additional information.

 

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

Qualified faculty members are continually encouraged to pursue professional, scholarly and creative activities. Tenure-track faculty members are especially encouraged to pursue these activities as detailed in the framework of the RTP process. Tenured faculty are encouraged to engage in sabbatical leaves when qualified. In addition, faculty are encouraged to consult with local industry and maintain their proficiency with current engineering practices.  


Criterion 2.4: Quality of student advising       

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

Student advising begins with summer orientations and continues throughout the first ME 100L class where students are required to meet with their academic advisor. All tenured and tenure-track faculty advise approximately 70 students each.

Faculty typically spend more time with students than the 5 office hours required each week. If students experience academic difficulties, they are required to meet with their advisor until the deficiencies are resolved. The goal is to identify "At Risk" students and advise them before it is too late. For each student earning less than a C in any core course, the faculty computes the core GPA. Over the last few years the ME program has developed internal computer advising capabilities via an EXCEL software package. ME advisors use this to conduct personal advising sessions with students. The EXCEL tool is designed to be robust, allowing students to perform "what-if" scenarios.

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

41.00 %

(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

28.00 %

(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
192.00 30.38% 180.00 27.31% 206.00 28.07% 265.00 32.32%   233.00 24.84%

(Value provided by the Administration)

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

The policies for "At Risk" students are described in Section 2.4.1 above. The Maximizing Engineering Program (MEP) assists many of our ME students with special advising, tutoring, and workshops. In addition, the ME honor society (Pi Tau Sigma) offers tutoring sessions twice a week which are open to any student.  

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
88.00 54.00 59.00 74.00 86.00

(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 Mechanical Engineering program continually advertises internships, co-ops, and internal and external R&D opportunities. Approximately 80% of our students engage in outside work. A significant number of these students are involved in the co-op program, which is open to junior and senior students. In 2004, approximately 15 students participated in the co-op program. In addition, approximately 25 other students are employed part-time through the department's Professional Practice Program. Finally, about 30 others are engaged in internship positions during their junior and senior years. Currently, companies are offering more internships than we have students to fill those positions. One notable example is Chevron Corp. They have an outstanding Summer Internship program hiring freshmen through junior students. Chevron only hires from four regional universities, with CPP being the only Cal State University where they recruit.  

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

The Mechanical Engineering program encourages students to participate in the Job Fairs and other services provided by the on campus career center. Chevron and other companies are encouraged and actively participate in the program Industry Advisory Council, College special events, competitions, and Project Symposium in order to network with our students.  


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)

Mechanical Engineering professional organizations include ASME, Pi Tau Sigma, Tau Beta Pi, ASHRAE, SAE. Clubs include SAE Mini-Baja, SAE Formula One, Solar Vehicles Club. Students are encouraged to attend the College annual events such as the Club Welcome Fair, National Engineers Week activities, Club Leadership Conference, etc. ASME and other groups sponsor guest speakers for their meetings.

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

Once or twice a year, the department and ME Honor Society (Pi Tau Sigma) host a student/faculty forum. Students and faculty meet (with food provided) to discuss current department issues, answer questions, and address student concerns.

On site visits to local companies and guest speakers help expose the students to broader thinking. The American Society of Mechanical Engineers CPP student chapter hosted guest speakers Jacob Hagman from Kiewit Pacific and Ed Miller from Southland Industries at their meetings in Fall 2005 quarter. They also participated in tours of the Etiwnada Power plant and the BP Carson Refinery during Winter 2006 quarter. One recent notable speaker at an ASME meeting was Paul Wellington, professor from Monash University in Melbourne, Australia. He spoke on design principles using his experiences racing against a solar car team from Cal Poly Pomona. There were 73 attendees to this Spring 2006 lunch-time talk.
 


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 BSME program currently utilizes six rooms to schedule its lecture classes. Two of these rooms were "smart classrooms". During the Spring 2006 quarter break, three of the rooms were converted to "smart classrooms". These rooms are generally adequate for the BSME scheduling needs.

The Mechanical Engineering Department operates ten main laboratories; fluids/hydraulics, system dynamics, strength of materials, special projects, alternative vehicles, mechatronics, machine design, alternative energy systems, environmental test & analysis, and engines/power systems. The fluids/hydraulics lab is shared with the civil and chemical engineering programs. There is currently a shortage of computer laboratories within the College of Engineering.
 

Non-instructional Space

Office space on campus is at a premium. However, having a new tenure-track faculty residing in a building separate from all the other program faculty is not good situation. Dr. Rezaei, our newest faculty member is in Building 9 while the department office and other faculty are in Building 17. We also have a full-time lecturer and part-time lecturer sharing a single-person office. Part-timer schedules are arranged so that many of them share one office also located in a building separated from the department.  

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

The BSME program consistently has the highest or near highest FTE/WTU ratio of all the engineering programs. The BSME enrollment has almost doubled over the past five years, placing huge demands on faculty resources. The program relies heavily on non-tenured faculty. The program has a total of 15 TT and tenured faculty as of Winter 2006. The program has 3 FT lecturers plus 10 PT lecturers teaching in Spring 2006. Lecturers are great for the efficiency of the program as they teach approximately 40% of the undergraduate students. However, they do not advise students or contribute to the advancement of the program through laboratory or program development.  

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

Currently the ME department has a 70% department chair, one full-time Administrative Assistant and is advertising to hire one full-time Technician to serve over one thousand undergraduate students as well as support the MSME program. The technical support needs to double to keep pace with student enrollments.  


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)

Computers are used for: Engineering analysis and design software, Lab and field data collection and processing, Standard office software (MS Word, Power Point, etc), Program web site, and Individual faculty web sites (often used to disseminate course materials).

The program uses "smart" classrooms as well as dedicated computer labs controlled by card swipes, so students can access the labs outside of regular class hours.
Some instructors utilize Blackboard and WebCT to deliver supplemental materials. The department strives to utilize new technology. A recent DOLCE award will support development of a hybrid course where material will be placed on the web to supplement lecture classes. The software used to produce work includes breeze presentation, breeze live, flash animation, blackboard, and an on-line exam bank using blackboard. The course will be pilot tested in Fall of 2006. If successful, the model will be extended to other applicable engineering courses.
 

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 BSME program is essentially a full-time day program. However, many students work during the week and endeavor to arrange all their classes on only 2 or 3 days. The program does offer some of its classes in the evenings, partly to serve the students, but also partly to utilize part-time faculty who are practicing engineers. The program also offers one or two Saturday classes associated with special projects, Solar Boat and Rose Float for students involved in those co-curriculum activities. The program offers a large number of summer courses which total approximately 50% of the largest regular academic quarter.  


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)
$ 1,611,018.00

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)

The Mechanical Engineering Department has been very successful in attracting gifts since occupying the new laboratory building in Fall 2001. These gifts have totaled over $500,000 coming from employers, alumni, professional associations, and even from faculty. They are being used to support and enhance the laboratories, as well as student and faculty activities.
The Mechanical and Engineering Technology chairs have been Co-PIs on two MWD contracts to assist MWD in the conduct of their annual Solar Cup competition for regional high school teams.
K. Anderson was PI on a flutter suppression research project for Parker Aerospace.
K. Anderson was PI on a fireplace flame study.
M. Jawaharlal was PI on a grant by NCIIA to promote entrepreneurship opportunities.
 


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)

Students enrollment in the BSME program has nearly doubled in the past 5 years making it now the largest program on campus; but support for it has not kept pace. Support is needed in the following areas:

1. Staff: The program has one administrative assistant to serve the students, chair, faculty and university. The department chair has a 70% position. The program is currently trying to hire one technician to service the faculty, 1000+ students, and 10 laboratories. In comparison, the ME department at SLO has one full-time department chair, two full-time administrative assistants, and four technicians. Our program needs to:
o Hire one more administrative assistant
o Provide a half-time assistant chair
o Hire one additional technician to assist in lab development and maintenance.

2. Equipment: Some of the lab equipment is nearly 50 years old and requires maintenance, repairs, or even replacement. As new areas emerge (such as bio-engineering, nano-technology, and mechatronics), additional labs and equipment are needed. Current needs include:
o Prototyping Machine: Initial cost $30K-$75K with an annual upkeep cost of $5K
o Strength of Materials Lab: $50K to repair the current machines
o Computer Lab, 17-2660: $48K for 30 new computers plus monitors.
o Develop a solar-power lab. Due to the current high cost of energy, this is a field with high potential for teaching as well as research funding.
o Upgrade faculty computers. Engineering software requires faster computing with more memory and better graphics.
o A computer/projection system in room 17-2133. Cost $5K-$10K

3. Faculty: The department currently has 15 T and TT faculty members with much of the teaching load carried by lecturers. We are currently understaffed by 2-3 faculty and expect 5 FT members (33%) to retire in the next 5 years.

4. Facilities: New faculty hires will require office space.
 

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.