Visitor: Keith Hjelmstad
Professor Hjelmstad urged us to think about outcomes. He noted that not all Electrical Engineering graduates will end up working as electrical engineers, so we should focus on fundamentals. He suggested that we "embrace undergraduate research more fully" as an integral part of the curriculum, and that senior research may be a good substitute for the capstone design course (which we already make possible as long as it includes a substantial design component.)
Dean Hjelmstad stated that he has never yet heard a complaint about the technical preparation of our students; we should think about whether we overdo that aspect, and whether we should consider more business or other elements in our curricula. He also wondered whether the General Education component of our curricula is being used effectively by our students, and whether there's anything we can do at the curricular level to improve that.
Keith encouraged us to think about educational efficiency, as relates to faculty as well as to students. He noted that curricula often evolve by a "patch here, patch there" or "chisel here, chisel there" approach, which can end up leading to inefficiency. He said there's a "4x4x8" idea floating around, which has been adopted at the University of Michigan, which partitions material into four courses of four hours for eight semesters. Professor Hjelmstad argues that this is easier for students, who have less overhead, and allows more efficient use of faculty preparation and instruction time. Tuition is becoming an ever-larger fraction of our budget, and alumni giving is low (he is unsure whether this reflects unhappiness among our former students with their UIUC experience or a sense that a public education creates little sense of obligation to support its future); budgetary constraints are likely to lead to decreases in faculty size, and that efficiency may thus become more important.
In response to questions as to whether the College might push to mandate a 4x4x8 curriculum, Professor Hjelmstad said no; it is at the "chat-about-it" stage at the College, and he presented it as an interesting idea or ideal. He said "I would be very happy if the first two years looked like that." He noted that our College remains low in terms of enrollment of underrepresented groups, and that almost all of our attrition in these groups occurs in the first two years. He believes that these students on average feel a stronger need to know "why am I learning this? What will this be good for?" and that we can increase retention by addressing this better in the first year or two. He said ECE 110 is "somewhat of a back-breaker for some students we want to keep", but that in concept its a good model for what we need at the freshman year.
Professor Hjelmstad listed several other issues for us to think about: ECE 329 and ECE 440 are "hard spots in your curriculum", and we should think about how they're pitched and what their desired outcomes are and whether they are currently structured to achieve them. He noted that time-to-degree is a problem, but he believes the problem lies not in the 128-hour requirements but in prerequisites. In any event, he believes we need to worry about this.