|
|
Paul Penfield, Jr.Professor of Electrical Engineering
|
New Degree Program
Major features
Intended to lead to practice of engineering
Five-year program
Simultaneous bachelor's and master's degrees
Available to top 3/4 of EECS undergraduates; used by 2/3
Seamless flow from undergraduate to graduate years
Continuation of undergraduate structure to the graduate year
Seamless integration of EE and CS
Contains three bachelor's programs as proper subsets
History
1986 -- Start of serious discussions
1990 -- Departmental decision to proceed
1992 -- University approvals
1994 -- First graduates (35)
1996 -- Accreditation
1998 -- General review
Simple model of educational programs in engineering
Bachelor's
General education
Entry-level engineering
Foundation for other professions (medicine, law, etc.)
Master's
Practice of engineering
Engineering management
Finance, consulting, & other careers needing analytical skills
Doctoral
Research
Teaching
Post-doc
Employment buffer
MIT EECS degree programs in 1990 not based on this model
S.B. (bachelor's)
VI-1, Electrical Science and Engineering
VI-3, Computer Science and Engineering
VI-A Internship, simultaneous S.M. (master's) and S.B.
S.M. for students pursuing doctorates
Ph.D. (doctoral)
Traditional Structure is 4 years + 1 year (4+1)
Extra constraint complicates planning
Some graduate courses not offered every year
University governance (committees, etc.) based on 4+1
S.M. admission based on research ability (wrong measure)
Those who might benefit the most excluded
Original vision
Bill Siebert saw it most clearly
Our graduates told us they needed a master's degree
. . . by going out and getting one
Internal discussions
Late 1980s
Agreement in principle by many in department
New Department Head
September, 1989
Decision to proceed made within a year
Committees formed to do the hard work
Key people:
Bill Siebert, Cam Searle, John Guttag, Paul Penfield
Impact on undergraduate program
Negative feelings of those not admitted to M.Eng. program
Effect on gender and racial diversity
Impact on VI-A Internship Program
This program already provided a five-year path to master's
Did students want the industrial experience or just the degree?
Impact on doctoral program
Less capable students in first-year graduate courses
Impact on department
Shift of emphasis toward professional education
Impact on MIT
Program might be too popular
Already 30% of MIT undergraduates majored in EECS
Increased technical specialization
Would our student be better served by more breadth?
Students might try to do it in four years
because of lack of financial aid for fifth year
Difficulty of finding enough short-length thesis topics
Difficulty of enforcing short thesis
Prestige of new degree, compared with S.M.
Undergraduate Educational Policy Committee (department)
Desire to bring existing EE and CS curricula together
First in having uniform structure
Next in allowing student flexibility
Ultimately, in new program without specialization, VI-2
Endless discussions
Summer workshop
Committee on Graduate Students (department)
Desire to keep S.M. for people from outside
Shorten thesis to match M.Eng. in length
Make M.Eng. available only to EECS undergraduates
Make S.M. available only to students from outside
Path to doctorate unchanged except master's thesis earlier
Department faculty consensus
Many meetings of various types
Mandatory vote, not anonymous, sent to department head
Overwhelming support, despite some real concerns
Three amendments to Rules and Regulations of the Faculty
New degree name, Master of Engineering
Make it like other master's programs in GPA requirements
Make it different in structure, length of thesis, specified field
These amendments merely defined the degree
Approvals then needed for our M.Eng. program (the first)
Changes to bachelor's programs (VI-1 and VI-3)
New unspecialized bachelor's program (VI-2)
New master's program
MIT committees not used to mixing undergraduate and graduate programs
Principal objection was lack of context material
New material was almost all technical
This was considered an opportunity lost
Needed to secure resources from Dean
Steady-state assumptions
About 200 undergraduates per year
No university financial aid available for fifth year
Undergraduate population unchanged
Undergraduates select EE or CS in same proportion
No new graduate courses but more students in existing ones
Self-imposed constraints
Same advising load per faculty
Same teaching style
Shorter master's thesis, to make five-year program realistic
Needs
New faculty, TAs, support staff
Added up to 50% of incremental tuition revenue
Three transition-year budgets also needed
Three bachelor's programs
VI-1 (Elec Sci & Eng); VI-3 (Comp Sci & Eng); VI-2 (EECS)
Identical structure
VI-1 and VI-3 were continuations of existing programs
Capstone project, instead of S.B. thesis
New M.Eng. program
Similar to existing VI-A Internship Program
. . . but without the industrial experience
Admission at end of junior year, mostly by grades
Minimal fifth-year financial aid (loan interest forgiveness)
S.B. degree requirements a proper subset
Short thesis (half time, one semester)
Changed S.M. program
For those from outside entering the doctoral program
Shorter thesis, to match the M.Eng. thesis
Registration
Increased undergraduate interest in EECS
Shift in interest from EE to CS (this is a national trend)
New VI-2 program most popular
M.Eng. pursued by two-thirds of the undergraduates
Gender and racial diversity unchanged
Accreditation
Not sought for M.Eng.
All three bachelor's programs accredited by ABET in 1996
VI-3 and VI-2 programs accredited by CSAB in 1996
New VI-2 program back-accredited for two years
(this covers all graduates of the program)
Surprise
Only 60% of the M.Eng. students get simultaneous degrees
Many march with their four-year classmates
Impact on other programs
VI-A Internship applications and enrollment down
many factors, not just the M.Eng. program
More small companies, fewer long-range projects
Larger first-year graduate courses
Must serve needs of weaker students
Shorter master's thesis is working, for both M.Eng. and S.M.
Enforced by loss of financial aid
Thesis topics are available
No known adverse effects on bachelor's programs
Finances
Student head-count targets in business plan met
Unrelated 6% budget reduction during this period
Offset in part by M.Eng. increases
70% M.Eng.students get some financial aid (RA, TA, ...)
Many students are taking out loans, as expected
Estimated time for payback, 7 years worst-case
Academic Performance
GPA of M.Eng. students 0.1 below that of S.M. students
M.Eng. students active in research when undergraduates
Acceptance rate into Ph.D. program high for those who apply
Five-year schedule realistic
Average time from entry to MIT to M.Eng. degree, 5.1 years
Program Satisfaction
Students overwhelmingly satisfied with the program
Some faculty unhappy with performance in graduate classes
A few faculty unhappy with short thesis
Program requirements considered too complicated
Lots of minor administrative hassles dealing with seams
The usual paradigm separates undergraduates and graduates
Example: Registrar computes separate UG and Grad GPAs
Some faculty cannot advise both EE and CS students
Industry recruiters value M.Eng. as much as S.M.
Other MIT M.Eng. programs follow different model
(We do not understand why)
4+1 format, not integrated with bachelor's programs
People from other universities admitted
Examples:
Civil and Environmental Engineering
Environmental and Water Quality
Environmental Geotechnology
High Performance Structures
Information Technology
Aeronautics and Astronautics
Nuclear Engineering
Ocean Engineering
Marine Environmental Systems
Logistics (interdepartmental)
Other universities have not adopted this model
(as far as is known)
Continued attention to implementation details
If you don't take care of the details they will take care of you
MIT EECS Program Review
Fall 1998
Mandated by faculty vote in 1992
Major changes still needed
Context (related nontechnical material)
Leadership or general education component
Incorporation of biological ideas
Export
Encourage others to mount similar programs