Report on the EECS M.Eng. Program

Paul Penfield, Jr. J. H. Shapiro J. A. del Alamo Department of Electrical    Engineering and Computer Science Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, MA 02139-4307

Acknowledgments

Real Author of Report
Jesús del Alamo

Bureaucrats
Paul Penfield
Jeff Shapiro

Real Assistance -- Undergraduate Academic Affairs Office:
Rosanne Swire
Ri Romano
Alberta Lipson

Real Assistance -- EECS:
Fred Hennie
Mark Zahn

Demographics

Note: The small lettering on this figure may be hard to read. The vertical axis is "# Degrees" from 0 to 350; the horizontal axis is "Academic Year" from 1990 to 1997; the three labels inside the graph, from top to bottom, are "Masters total", "SM", and "MEng".

Educational principles behind MEng

Key motivation for MEng:
"(...) education through the master's level is required
for practicing engineers." [J. Moses, Motion to MIT Faculty, 1992]

Key design feature:
integrated, seamless five-year program that avoids
"inefficiencies that come from hitching together two
separate programs" [Penfield et al., Faculty Newsletter, 1992]

MEng modeled largely on 6-A program (80 year old SB/SM combo)

Timeline of typical MEng student

|  freshman   |  sophomore  |    junior   |    senior   |  5th year   |
|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|
              ^                        ^  ^             ^             ^
              |                        |  |             |             |
 declaration of         MEng application  |   declaration             |
 EECS major             (1 page)          |   of graduate             |
                                          |   status                  |
                                          |             graduation with
                             MEng admission             MEng and SB
                                                        degrees

MEng vs. SB and MS

	SB	SM	MEng (+SB)
GIR's	15	0	15
EECS common core	4	0	4
math	2	0	4
eng. concentr.	5	0	9
laboratory	1	0	1
thesis	1	2	2
EECS total	13	2	20
Free electives	4	2	5
Grad subjects	(0)	4	(6)
total	32	8	40

Implementation Challenges

Is it an undergraduate or graduate program?
Yes.
Fifth year has classroom structure plus research thesis
But no undergraduate-style financial aid or housing

Is it a professional or research program?
Yes.
Professional perspective is needed by doctoral students
M.Eng. is required part of the doctoral program
Research experience is needed by practicing engineers
Same thesis as S.M. program
Treat students as individuals; don't stereotype by program

MIT administrative procedures
Separate graduate, undergraduate GPA
Registrar's two buckets
Separate degree requirements
Separate oversight committees (CUP, CGSP)

MEng Review Process

Oct. 97: visit to CUP by Prof. del Alamo.

Fall 97/Spring 98: data mining and analysis.

Apr. 98: PEPC review of data.

Summer/Fall 98: writing of Report.

Oct. 98: PEPC approval of report, recommendations.

Oct. 98: presentation to EECS faculty.

Nov. 98: presentation to Engineering Council.

Dec. 98: presentation to CUP.

Dec. 98: presentation to CGSP.

Major Findings

Registration (approximate)
75% of EECS undergraduates qualify after junior year
(4.0 GPA)
75% apply
70% admitted
65% enroll

Academic Performance
Average undergraduate GPA 4.5; graduate GPA 4.7
Very few CAP actions on M.Eng. students
Only 3 revocations of admission in 5 years

Effects on General Education
M.Eng. students have high rates of participation in
UROP
double majors
minors
subjects outside EECS

Major Findings (cont)

No aberrations in student behavior
Pattern of enrollment in 6.001 -- 6.004 unchanged
82% of students declare graduate status in fifth year
Average time to M.Eng. degree = 5.1 years
No evidence of undue pressure

Graduate subjects
Significant increase in enrollment
Especially in computer science
Faculty are concerned about maintaining advanced level

Students say in exit interviews that they are happy
They like:
5-year Master's degree
working closely with faculty on thesis
taking graduate subjects
Some dislike:
some aspects of thesis -- short, not enough research

Other Factors

Popularity of EECS major
Model discussed in 1980s = 290 per class
This year sophomores = 363
Many possible reasons
Information revolution
Plenty of jobs
Personal computing pervasive in society
Popularity of the Web
M.Eng. program attractive

Shift in interest into CS from EE and other areas
National trend

Key conclusions from MEng review

1. MEng is largely satisfying its educational goals.

Students show great degree of achievement.

MEng has not compromised general educational
goals of MIT undergraduate education.

No aberrations in students' behavior detected.

Students are happy.

But...

2. MEng implementation needs significant adjustment.

EECS suffering from undergraduate enrollment crisis
(high number of students, unevenly distributed).

There are lots of MEng students in EECS graduate
subjects.

There is a shortage of teaching resources,
particularly in graduate and upper level UG subjects.