On October 1st and 2nd I visited visited Cal Poly San Luis Obispo for my third visit, the end of my first sabbatical trip. Thanks to the efforts of Al Estes (Dept. Head) I met all faculty currently teaching the design aspects of AE program and others as well. As at Wyoming and Boulder everyone was welcoming and helpful making my visit both productive and enjoyable. I could well understand why one faculty member explained why students don't complain if (as is the case for most) it takes longer to graduate than four years - "who wants to leave paradise?"
What did I learn?
- It is proudly and very successfully a program devoted to producing structural engineers ready to go to work in the very demanding seismic environment of California
- Its graduates are highly sought after (I heard several times that firms say they'll hire only master's students except for Cal Poly undergraduates)
- Students get detailed, working-drawing-level, knowledge in Steel, Concrete, Masonry and Timber design through both analysis classes (lecture) and successor "lab" classes. These latter constitute the capstone design classes and are extraordinarily intense. They meet three times/week for three hours each session and only three credits (units).
- The total number of credits to graduate is 204 quarter-credits = 136 semester credits. Beyond a small number of construction management classes, architecture, and the required "general education" classes, all other classes are structural
- Teaching is emphasized as the primary role of faculty at both the university and department level
- The department has a separate tenure process for practitioner-background professors, not necessarily with a PhD.
- The faculty are nearly evenly split between practitioners and more analytic (PhD usually) individuals. There seems to be great respect for that mix, with a belief that the "tension" between the two is constructive.
- By the standards of other institutions teaching loads are extraordinarily high, with the lab courses being the most demanding.
- The faculty are (every one that I interviewed) personally committed to this approach, recognizing the demands, but valuing their environment and the results they see.
- There are some indications that the university-level atmosphere is changing and that more research demands are being placed on faculty without a corresponding decrease in teaching load or increase in research resources.
- Teaching Methods and Curriculum
- Faculty have a weekly meeting in which there is much communication.
- There is a strong curriculum committee that regularly reviews assessment material and provides inter-class coordination of material on an ongoing basis.
- There is a much use of models in classes to provide physical understanding of the theoretical principles.
- Faculty seem eager to experiment with variations in the curriculum, though keeping within the long established bounds of the curriculum. An example is the experiment with combining statics and mechanics in a two-course sequence that starts with three-dimensional vectors.
- The curriculum is extremely responsive to industry priorities. These are received through a formal advisory council as well as industry visits and informal communications.
- One faculty member expressed a fear that this verged on a "trade school" approach, but only one.
- Faculty recognize that there are multiple systems in a building, but on the whole feel that MEP (which is unrepresented in the curriculum) can be handled with relatively minor effort to make allowance for weights and duct clearances. If ABET criteria changed to require more explicit inclusion that would cause significant problems for the curriculum, perhaps even prompting a departure from the list of AE schools.
- The department is starting a Master's program, in significant part because of the directions being set by ASCE.
- BIM is being included in the curriculum, in large part because industry believes it is necessary, but no one seemed to think it would make much difference in the other aspects of the curriculum.
- Because the department is located in a school with Architecture there is collaboration with them, but relations with the Civil Engineering program appear to be distant.
- Students
- It's highly competitive to enter (about 1 in 8 are admitted)
- About 80% of the graduates go to work in structural firms - a much higher percentage than from at my previous institutions.
- Students I viewed in classes were eager, questioning and often humorous. Their interactions with professors were both respectful and demanding.
- They have an extremely strong student organization (SEAOC) that sponsors both professional and social events regularly. In particular they organize and run a highly regarded "forum" in February that is both a job fair and a gathering place for about sixty firms.
- An AEI chapter may be formed to join forces with SEAOC.
- Observations
- As is probably obvious from my comments I was greatly impressed with the detail of the program, the dedication and the teaching approaches of the faculty, and the constructive balance of practitioner-background and theory-background faculty.
- I heard some concern expressed that students weren't being led to explore the creative possibilities of their discipline because of the strong practical emphasis.
- I also heard some desires to increase the working relationship with the other members of their college, Architecture and Construction Management.
- It seems a shame that there appears to be a gulf between this program and their colleagues in Civil Engineering.
About my Sabbatical Project
- I'm inclined to look more carefully at the relationship between overall institution mission and the character of the faculty and goals of the AE program.
- I'm reinforced in my belief that the face-to-face meetings bring to light relationships that I would never understand strictly from the survey results.
