2002 Advisory Board Report

 

Review Date:  November 8, 2002

 

Team Members Present:

Mark Benson               US Bank

Wendy Craig               Brush Wellman

Stan David                  Oak Ridge National Lab

Ken McClellan            Los Alamos National Lab

Ray Peterson                IMCO Recycling

Shane Vernon             Nucor Steel

Shawn Veurink           RPM (substituting for Robert Mudge)

John Walenta              Caterpillar

Richard Wensel           Micron Technology

 

 

SUMMARY

 

South Dakota School of Mines and Technology (SDSM&T) and the South Dakota Board of Regents have set specific operating criteria on the Materials and Metallurgical Engineering Department and its faculty.  The Industrial Advisory Board (IAB) feels the department is doing a very good job while meeting those criteria.  The IAB does not expect or want a major shift in policy at SDSM&T, but a slight relaxing of the current rules would be valuable in many ways.  The Department is producing quality students who are well accepted by industry and academia, both regionally and nationally.  However, the Department is at a critical junction for the future.  When compared with other Metallurgical and Materials Science Departments nationally, it has some weaknesses which should be addressed.  Their student enrollment is lower than desired and the student to faculty ratio is higher than desired.  Benchmarking studies show that other metallurgical and materials science departments allow their faculty to perform more research and teach less.  The department currently has five full-time faculty with two research professors.  The IAB sees this number as the minimum to maintain critical mass for the department.  Additionally a majority of the fulltime faculty is nearing retirement age.  The IAB recommends four actions in the near future:

·         Plan for the future transition of faculty during the upcoming retirement phase,

·         Mobilize the departmental Alumni to assist the department in various ways,

·         Develop a plan on attracting more students, and

·         Determine methods to allow the faculty limited time to pursue research goals which would benefit the students, the school and the community.

 

Observations by the Advisory Board

 

Strengths:

 

Committed Faculty

·         Care about teaching

·         Available to students

·         Capacity to change as needs vary

·         Planning for the future

·         Dynamic individuals

 

Students are well prepared for “Traditional” employment

 

Metallurgical Engineering Program

·         Unique education not taught in many other institutions

·         Meets a niche market

 

Department fulfills a Regional / National Need

·         Widespread placement of graduates

 

Income from Research Improving

·         Change in philosophy of department

 

Development of Multi-Disciplinary Teams for Junior and Senior Design Class

·         Application to “Real World” after school

 

New research is bringing money into the department

·         Improves equipment available in Undergrad Labs

 

Department has a positive impact on the local economy

 

Concerns:

 

Students have limited exposure to broader areas of Materials Science and Processing:

·         Emerging Fields

·         Peripheral Fields

·         Welding Metallurgy

·         Statistical Process Control Concepts

·         Advanced Materials Processing

·         Electronic Materials

Exposure to one or two classes in these fields might get a student a job interview that they would not otherwise get.

 

Consider renaming some classes to more accurately reflect content (helps with student marketability)

 

Continued student growth is needed for sustainability of department

 

Alumni are under utilized and could help the department in many ways:

·         Networking (mentoring, information sources, employment opportunities)

·         Referral of potential students to SDSM&T

·      Guidance to students and faculty for research areas and topics relevant to industry

·         Sources of Equipment

·         Teaching

·         Donations

 

High Student / Facility Ratio by comparison to other national Materials Science / Metallurgy Departments

 

Aging Faculty

·         Succession planning needed

 

Insufficient Resources for Faculty Critical Mass

·      The department needs to maintain or increase its faculty size and currently there is no available method to do this.

 

Department needs to improve its public relations – salesmanship with potential students, alumni, industry, and the local community

 

An improved Intellectual Property Policy is needed

 

 

Response:

The MetE Advisory Board met November, 2002.  Four items of concern were noted by the Board:

 

1.      Plan for the future transition of faculty during the upcoming retirement phase,

2.      Mobilize the departmental Alumni to assist the department in various ways,

3.      Develop a plan for attracting more students, and

4.      Determine methods to allow the faculty limited time to pursue research goals which would benefit the students, the school and the community.

 

What follows are actions taken by the program since the Board meeting.

 

Response to Concern #1

 

During the 2002-2004 time period the Department Chair met several times with the college Dean and Academic Vice President to discuss transitional planning of faculty.  In the spring semester 2004 permission was granted to begin the search process for a replacement for Dr. Stone.  Dr. Stone will retire after the spring semester 2005.  The search for Dr. Stone’s replacement is on-going.

 

Response to Concern #2

 

After the Board meeting a 5-year strategic plan was developed.  As part of the strategic plan a capital campaign has evolved, with the goal being securing funds to create an endowed chair position.  Dr. Everett Bloom (Met E 1963 ) has led this effort for the MetE alumni.  Along with the Department Chair, Dr. Bloom has identified key alumni who will also help lead this effort.

 

In addition to the capital campaign, the program has begun regular newsletters, and e-mail lists for alumni.

 

Response to Concern #3

 

During the 2003-2004 the Department Chair met with his counterparts in Physics and Geological Engineering/Geology.  These meetings resulted in the hiring of a part-time recruiter for the various B.S. programs.  The recruiter started summer 2004, and it is too early to tell how successful this effort is. 

 

In addition to higher the recruiter the program developed a number of hallway displays to heighten the public awareness of the program.  These efforts likely will facilitate the recruiting efforts.

 

Response to Concern #4

 

While not explicitly of concern to the B.S. program a move starting in 2001 toward teaching selected cohorts (Juniors/Seniors) courses in an alternating year sequence has helped address the concern of the Board.  In addition, to allowing more time for faculty development the move toward alternate year teaching of core courses has developed camaraderie among students, and optimized class sizes.  With respect to the latter aspect, prior to the alternate year teaching sequence program faculty often taught courses to fewer than 10 students.  This situation was found to be an inadequate use of resources and also not optimal from a teaching/learning perspective.