Spring 2004 – Meeting Electrical and Computer Engineering and Technology
Based on the update of faculty searches underway the IAB members expressed concerns about the massive exit of seasoned faculty. It appears that within the next 16 to 18 months, five or six of the eleven current ECET faculty members will be gone, leaving only five or six experienced faculty members. This situation will make assessment efforts very difficult if current faculty have not clearly and completely documented their teaching activities.
The current hiring effort for three positions appears to be setting the stage for the same disconnect to occur in only a few years again. Dr. Hudson and Dr. O'Clock summarized some of the apparent reasons for these problems as they were reported in the IAB Minutes of October 16,2003. One of the major issues appears to be teaching loads – some of which has been brought on by university standard metrics and some by the departments addition of new courses rather than integrating concepts into existing courses. Also complicating the workloads has been the success of the graduate program.
The fact that seasoned faculty and our newest faculty hire are resigning is of concern to the IAB. Both Bill Betton and Tom Lietha expressed some dismay that the Department is not able to keep its new faculty hires. They were curious to know if we saw this coming. The IAB concerns echoed comments made by a number of accreditation visitors who have stated that the ECE&T Department's teaching loads are the highest they have ever seen.
George O'Clock replied that MSU should be aware that ECET cannot hold onto new ECET faculty hires because of credit hour overloading, inadequate attention to relocation and research release time for new hires, and non-response to student needs as perceived by the new hires. Dr. O'Clock informed the IAB that this problem was predicted and discussed in a December 12, 2003 memo sent to the Dean and VPAA, and also discussed in an assessment document enclosed with the IAB Minutes of October 16, 2003. Dr. Hudson also commented on this issue and informed the IAB that he also believes that some of the difficulties have occurred because the faculty for a many years have been allowed to function with a great deal of autonomy without coordinating with each other and also have been slow in accepting the new accreditation models and also in some cases accepting changes in technology and teaching methodologies.
Questions from IAB members regarding the structural location of the department in the College and if this was part of the problem. There were a variety of views regarding this as the problem. While it appears that there may be some structural incompatibilities with respect to forcing engineering to operate under a very diverse college environment there were also concerns expressed about the commonality of purpose and focus of departmental faculty given the resistance to change from a four day schedule. Concerned comments from Bill Betten, Tom Lietha and indicated that it is time to stop letting the tail wag the dog. They recognize that engineering may need to a separate college, and it is becoming clear that the current structure is contributing to the deterioration of ECET program quality, planning, response and morale.
Dr. Hudson talked extensively on the assessment process, and described some of the problems that he is having with respect to getting all of his faculty to "buy in" to the assessment process. The fact that some engineering professors are not "buying in" to the assessment process did not surprise IAB member, Tom Lietha. Tom Lietha indicated that there appears to be no incentive at MSU to buy into the process. As far as many of the IAB members are concerned, assessment is very difficult to sell, especially when it appears that our ability to maintain accreditation is highly doubtful. Much of the problem appears to be oriented around the rather large amount of structural inadequacies that are contributing to the Department's inability to hold on to new faculty hires.
It was agreed that simply hiring three new faculty members is probably not going to have a significant impact on the accelerating deterioration in ECET that is evident at this point. The IAB realizes that it is doubtful that we will keep a new hire beyond a year, especially when the new hire starts to experience the effects of class loads and minimal support levels on their ability to do research, interfacing with the community, publishing, engaging in new course development and all of the other tasks that are necessary for promotion and professional development. Dr. Hudson expressed his concern that it will be almost impossible to do any quality assessment given the large change in faculty.
Several of the IAB members wondered how could something that had such value and quality, deteriorate so fast. Dr. O'Clock gave the opinion that the deterioration was not "fast," but that it started to happen immediately after the structure of engineering was changed from a college of its own, with its own Dean, to a set of departments under a broader based College of Science, Engineering and Technology. None of the IAB members were aware of a set of engineering programs that went backwards in that fashion. Generally, engineering programs evolve from an initial effort in a science or business oriented college, they grow, they then become autonomous under their own school or college, and remain that way.
Dr. Hudson also expressed his view that the success of the graduate program and its needs have significantly taxed department resources, this coupled with required assessment has created a situation in which faculty are more likely to revolt than assist with efforts to improve the situation and presented as an example his efforts at curriculum reform which quickly evolved into "you can't do that to my course" response from faculty rather than a willingness to look at the entire student experience.
Dr. Hudson and Dr. O'Clock also outlined the problems that any engineering program will have if engineering faculty are forced to teach a 12 hour load (which often amounts to teaching four different courses with two of the courses having one or two lab sections). A twelve hour four course/two lab week does not allow the faculty member to remain current, engage in research, publish, interface with industry, become involved in the community and perform other tasks necessary for tenure and promotion. Dr. O'Clock made the comment that requiring electrical engineering professors to teach 12 hours (or more) is insane, and very few electrical engineering departments will survive under those requirements. Several of the IAB members indicated that from the results that they have seen here at MSU, that statement is obvious.
Respectfully submitted: Bill Hudson, George O'Clock
