Minutes

ECE Faculty Meeting October 3, 2017 12:40

Present: Drs. Carter, Chamberlin, Kirsch, Kayaalp, Kun, LaCourse, Messner, Miller, Rudolph,

Smith, Song, Yoon

1. Approve minutes of September 19, 2017 faculty meeting

The minutes were approved

2. ABET ( Draft Visitor reports for Electrical Engineering and Computer Engineering)

a. No deficiencies were identified (i.e., nothing blocking our path to accreditation)

b. Weaknesses identified:

i. Criterion 2: the process of review for our Program Educational Objec-tives (PEO’s) is not adequately documented

1. We should document every time we discuss PEO’s in faculty meetings, Student Advisory Board Meetings and IAB meetings

2. Motion to endorse our PEO’s:

Depth: To be effective in applying electrical engineering principles in

engineering practice or for advanced study in electrical engineering.

Breadth: To have a productive career in the many diverse fields of

electrical engineering such as analog engineering, bioengineering,

communications, and electromagnetics and waves, or in the pursuit of

graduate education in disciplines such as electrical engineering, medi-

cine, law or business.

Professionalism: To function effectively in the complex modern work

environment with the ability to assume professional leadership roles.

The motion to reaffirm the PEO’s above was discussed and voted upon by the ECE faculty, and

the motion passed.

ii. Criterion 4: we need to implement a systematic evaluation of Perfor-mance Indicators (grades are not sufficient). We may want to add these indicators to our syllabi (e.g., complex numbers, loop equations, Fourier Transforms, etc.) and use specific test question results as measures of success

1. We are commingling our survey results: they should be sepa-rate for CE and EE

2. Outcome h) is not assessed. That outcome is: The broad educa-

tion necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global and societal context:

a. We can require students to address “impact” in their capstone final report to satisfy this issue

b. We can require the same to address ethics

c. Concerns identified

i. We need to show explicitly how we make team experiences available to stu-dents

ii. We need to show explicitly how students are aware of constraints and stand-ards (we can satisfy this by requiring students to address this in their cap-stone report)

iii. For CE program: replacing Prof. Miller is a concern

d. Student feedback given to Visitors

i. CE’s and EE’s have different backgrounds when entering ECE602, which disadvantages CE’s

Prof. Miller noted that in his analysis of student performance in ECE602, the CE’s outperformed

the EE.

ii. High number of Gen Ed requirements poses difficulty

iii. Moving ECE694 created problems for some students as it prevented them from working on their projects over the summer

iv. EE students were less prepared when entering ECE562 because they had one fewer programming course

v. ECE647 is too abstract and could benefit from practical examples

vi. Parking continues to be a problem for commuters

3. Announcements

a. Interaction with Dean relating to new hire(s) (see attached)

The department’s response to the Dean’s request for information was discussed, and it was de-

cided that a timeline be included in the response to show that our need for new faculty extends

back over many years. The Chair will draft the response and then circulate it to faculty so that

they can include information about how their research would benefit from new and targeted fac-

ulty slots. The target area will be Embedded Computing with a focus on Biomedical Engineer-

ing.

b. ECE Milling Machine

i. It works, but perhaps Jim Abare should be the sole operator

It was agreed that Mr. Abare should be the sole operator of the milling machine

ii. Should we encourage students to send their boards outside for fabrica-tion?

c. Advising

i. Eligibility for Senior Projects (Messner: see attached)

1. Ensuring prerequisites have been met

2. Senior Projects and independent studies

Prof. Messner presented the two motions stated in the attachment, and these motions were dis-

cussed and voted upon by the ECE faculty. The result is that both motions passed, and they have

been archived on the department’s website under Policies/Student Related.

ii. Should we advocate for more centralized advising?

The faculty meeting was adjourned at this point in the agenda as it was past 2:00pm.

d. Library proposal to eliminate subscriptions

4. Standing Committee Reports/Updates

a. Undergraduate (Miller)

b. Graduate (Kun)

c. Lab & Equipment (Messner)

d. Faculty Senate (LaCourse)

From: Chamberlin, Kent

Sent: Sunday, October 1, 2017 5:12 PM

To: Jones, Wayne <Wayne.Jones@unh.edu>

Cc: Roberts, Kate <kate.roberts@unh.edu>

Subject: RE: Impassioned Plea

Wayne,

Thank you for your response.

We have a clear sense of where we would like to go as a department as spelled out in our strate-

gic plan, and we will revisit that plan in our faculty meeting on Tuesday to verify that it contin-

ues to accurately reflect our vision. If you don’t object, I would like to circulate your email to

our faculty to let them know your position with regards to new hires. What you say in your

email differs from our expectations in that we assumed that new positions would be automatic

given that we had already been approved for a second hire last year (the person receiving that of-

fer ended up turning us down) and because of our current overreliance on adjunct faculty, a situ-

ation that will get considerably worse with Prof. Miller’s retirement and release time allow-

ances. Finding qualified adjuncts who are willing to teach for a small fraction of what they can

make in industry is problematic at best, which is a major reason why we feel it crucial to lessen

our reliance on them sooner rather than later.

I will provide you with the one-pager that you mention in your email shortly after our faculty

meeting on Tuesday. In the meantime, anything you can do to pave the way for us to receive

new positions would be greatly appreciated.

Regards,

-Kent

From: Jones, Wayne

Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2017 11:44 AM

To: Chamberlin, Kent <Kent.Chamberlin@unh.edu>

Cc: Roberts, Kate <kate.roberts@unh.edu>

Subject: RE: Impassioned Plea

Kent,

Thanks for following up. We will need some more information to consider this request. It is im-

portant that we are strategic with all of our hiring decisions and because this would be a last mi-

nute request, I have to be even more prepared to defend this to get Provost approval. It is not

enough to just say we want to replace a retirement. A few questions to consider:

Where would this hire fit in the departments strategic plan? What area would the scholarship be

and how does this fit in the bigger picture for the department? What are your salary and start up

expectations? Where would you put them for their office and research space?

I expect you have already thought through these. Please put them into a 1 page word document

and send them to both kate (cc’d here) and I for further discussion.

Thanks,

Wayne

From: Chamberlin, Kent

Sent: Friday, September 29, 2017 11:01 AM

To: Jones, Wayne <Wayne.Jones@unh.edu>

Subject: Impassioned Plea

Good morning Wayne,

Now that we’re no longer in the throes of ABET, I am hopeful that we can revisit our request for

new faculty lines. Considering our current overreliance on adjuncts along with the imminent

loss of Tom Miller, we are having grave concerns about our immediate and long-term fu-

ture. Our immediate concerns are exacerbated by the prospect of a possible sabbatical next year

(Messner) and release-time requests for two other faculty members (Song for his NIH contract

and Kirsch for CRC). In the longer term, we are concerned that our reputation for teaching qual-

ity is being harmed by our use of adjuncts. So, my “impassioned plea” is for us to get your ap-

proval for at least one new hire quickly. We believe that our window for hiring qualified indi-

vidual(s) is closing rapidly.

Thank you for considering our plea.

-Kent

Kent Chamberlin, PhD Professor and Chair

Dept.of Electrical & Computer Engineering Kingsbury Hall Durham, NH 03824-3591 Voice: (603) 862-3766 FAX: (603) 862-1832

Senior Project Discussion and Motion for Faculty Consideration

ECE791 - COURSE DESCRIPTION

First semester of the capstone design experience. Students develop project plans, and prepare and

present written and oral project proposals. The project plans must include aspects of design, im-

plementation and evaluation. At the end of the semester, students prepare a written progress re-

port. ECE senior standing. Writing intensive.

COURSE GOALS: (From Current Syllabus)

The primary goal of the Senior Project sequence is to facilitate the student’s transition from

Engineering School to the Engineering Profession. All Electrical and Computer Engineering

undergraduates complete ECE791 and ECE792 sequence that expose students to the challenges

of engineering design and project management. This will allow them to integrate the skills

learned over the prior years and apply them to a meaningful design or research project of their

choice. As part of this career preparation experience, students will learn the so-called “soft

skills” (e.g. project management, team dynamics, proper documentation, oral and written com-

munications, presentation, etc.) as they design, build and test a team project.

Issues:

1. This semester I have found three cases where students who do not have “Senior Stand-

ing” in our programs registering for ECE791

2. There is one case where a senior student is trying to use a project in a senior professional

elective to satisfy both their professional elective AND be part of their senior project.

Both these issues must be resolved in order to make it clear to all Student (and Faculty) what the

rules are!

Issue 1

The following chart is our “roadmap” for each of our programs. I have highlighted what I be-

lieve to be the “CORE” content for each with various colors.

Senior Project Discussion and Motion for Faculty Consideration

Electrical Engineering Compuer Engineering

Math425 Math425 Common Math and Physics

Math426 Math426

Math527 Math527 Common ECE Core

Math645 Math645

Phys407 Phys407 Specific to EE Major

Phys408 Phys408

CS410 or CS 415 CS 415 Specific to CE major

ECE401 ECE401

ECE541 ECE541 Semi Common CS Course

ECE548 ECE548

ECE543 ECE543

ECE562 ECE562

ECE602 ECE602

ECE603 ECE603

ECE633 ECE633

ECE634 ECE634

ECE647 ECE647

ECE651 ECE583

ECE617 ECE649

ECE618 CS416

Math/Sci Elective CS515

CS520

Senior Project Discussion and Motion for Faculty Consideration

I would like to offer the following motion in order to nail

down just what “ECE Senior Standing” is.

Motion 1

No students will be allowed to register for ECE791 or ECE792 with-

out having taken and passed ALL of the requisite core courses listed

below, or have been approved for equivalent courses via transfer

credit or approved Departmental waivers

Electrical Engineering Compuer Engineering

Math425 Math425 Common Math and Physics

Math426 Math426

Math527 Math527 Common ECE Core

Math645 Math645

Phys407 Phys407 Specific to EE Major

Phys408 Phys408

CS410 or CS 415 CS 415 Specific to CE major

ECE401 ECE401

ECE541 ECE541 Semi Common CS Course

ECE548 ECE548

ECE543 ECE543

ECE562 ECE562

ECE602 ECE602

ECE603 ECE603

ECE633 ECE633

ECE634 ECE634

ECE647 ECE647

ECE651 ECE583

ECE617 ECE649

ECE618 CS416

Math/Sci Elective CS515

CS520

Senior Project Discussion and Motion for Faculty Consideration

In addition, I would like a reaffirmation of the policy that

was put in place some time ago. That policy was that there

could be no “double dipping” of credit. Thus a senior pro-

ject had to be different than any projects related to any 7XX

course.

This leads to motion 2

Motion 2

No students will be allowed have a project that is part of a Profes-

sional Elective serve as part of a Senior Project