September 2014 In the following report, Hanover Research assesses the market for bachelor’s degree programs in engineering at Clarion University of Pennsylvania. The analysis contained in this report relies on degree completions data, national and state labor market projections, and profiles of similar programs in the area. Executive Summary and Key Findings ................................................................................ 3 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................3 KEY FINDINGS .............................................................................................................................3 Section I: Student Demand Indicators ................................................................................ 5 ENGINEERING DEGREE COMPLETION TRENDS ....................................................................................5 Methodology .....................................................................................................................5 National Trends..................................................................................................................6 Regional Trends .................................................................................................................7 Pennsylvania Completions .................................................................................................9 DEMAND BY STUDENT TYPE.........................................................................................................10 Men ..................................................................................................................................11 Transfer Students.............................................................................................................11 Online Students ...............................................................................................................13 Veterans and Military Service Personnel.........................................................................13 Section II: Labor Market Trends ....................................................................................... 17 EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................17 NATIONAL LABOR PROJECTIONS ...................................................................................................18 PENNSYLVANIA EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS ...................................................................................18 Section III: Competitor Profiles ........................................................................................ 21 STUDENT OUTCOMES .................................................................................................................21 ENGINEERING PROGRAM START-UP COSTS .....................................................................................22 THE COLLEGE OF NEW JERSEY ......................................................................................................24 Biomedical Engineering Curriculum ................................................................................25 Faculty and Institutional Resources .................................................................................26 GANNON UNIVERSITY ................................................................................................................27 Environmental Engineering Degree .................................................................................28 FROSTBURG STATE UNIVERSITY ....................................................................................................29 Mechanical Engineering Partnership with UMD .............................................................30 Electrical and Materials Engineering Concentrations......................................................30 INTRODUCTION In this report, Hanover Research analyzes the market for a bachelor’s degree in various engineering fields for Clarion University of Pennsylvania. Hanover’s analysis is based on degree completions data from the National Center for Education Statistics, labor market information from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and state governments, and secondary literature on current trends in engineering education. This report comprises the following sections:    Section I provides an overview of student demand for bachelor’s degrees in engineering fields. Hanover relies on national and regional degree completions data to assess the potential viability of an engineering degree program at Clarion University This section also discusses the program features most likely to attract male students, transfer students, online students, and military personnel/veterans. Section II analyzes the projected labor market for college graduates with engineering degrees drawing on data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry. Section III provides detailed profiles of several potential competitor programs. KEY FINDINGS     Based on demand, several engineering fields show strong potential for a Bachelor of Science degree program at Clarion University, including chemical engineering, biomedical engineering, and environmental engineering. These fields exhibit high student demand nationally and regionally, and associated careers are expected to grow significantly over the coming decade as well. When compared with other occupations, engineering fields are expected to see faster-than-average growth. Nationally, occupations across all engineering fields are expected to grow 13.5 percent from 2012 to 2022, above the national job growth rate of 10.8 percent. In Pennsylvania, engineering jobs are expected to grow 13.3 percent from 2010 to 2020, well exceeding the state average of 6.4 percent. Engineering degree programs disproportionately attract male students. Approximately 81 percent of all engineering degrees from 2009 to 2013 were awarded to male students. The highest concentrations of male students are typically in computer-related engineering fields. Significant challenges exist for creating online engineering programs, and there are currently few accredited, fully-online engineering degree programs. While some engineering courses are suited to online formats, laboratory courses incorporating expensive equipment are difficult to adapt to an online setting.   Simplifying the process of awarding transfer credit and credit for military training can help attract transfer students and veteran students to engineering degree programs. Transfer students often struggle with the complexity of transfer protocols, and veteran students are eager to receive academic credit for technical military training. In addition, providing opportunities for military personnel to complete advanced mathematics courses will ease veterans’ transition into engineering bachelor’s programs. Engineering programs are typically expensive to launch and maintain. In addition to expenses for faculty and ongoing operations, laboratories in particular are costly. However, industry support, donations, state funding, partnerships between higher education institutions, and proposed alternatives such as a “lab in a box” or using cloud computing to enhance laboratory experiences can help offset some costs. Additional research would be required to investigate start-up costs for specific undergraduate engineering programs. In this section, Hanover Research examines trends in undergraduate engineering degree completions to determine the level of interest that Clarion University of Pennsylvania might expect for its own engineering degree programs. ENGINEERING DEGREE COMPLETION TRENDS METHODOLOGY To assess completions trends in engineering programs, Hanover analyzes the five most recent years of data available through the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). The NCES uses a taxonomic system of numeric codes to classify higher education programs known as the Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP). All institutions of higher education are required to submit conferral data, sorted by award level and CIP code, to the NCES’s Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). In considering program completion data obtained through IPEDS, it should be noted that institutions classify their programs independently, meaning that two programs that are identical in all respects could hypothetically be classified under different CIP codes, which can skew trends. Hanover relies on three statistical metrics when considering year-to-year trends in completions data: Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR), Average Annual Change (AAC), and Standard Deviation (STDEV). CAGR is a theoretical indicator that demonstrates the percentage growth of the dataset from year to year, assuming a steady rate of growth between the first and final years. AAC is determined by calculating the average numerical year-to-year change, which helps to account for the volume of completions. STDEV measures the variance in yearly changes. To avoid misrepresenting market trends, Hanover has only calculated these figures for datasets that include at least five years of information. In assembling this report, Hanover considered bachelor’s degree completions in all engineering-related CIP classifications (the 14.XXXX family). However, in the following tables, Hanover lists only the top ten engineering classifications according to the conditions specified for each figure. Data are provided for these top fields at the national, regional, and state levels. In all tables detailing top engineering majors by CAGR, Hanover eliminated any CIP classifications that had:    Nationally: Fewer than 50 conferrals in 2013, Regionally: Fewer than 20 conferrals in 2013, and Statewide: Fewer than 10 conferrals in 2013. This was done to prevent very low-volume fields from taking undue precedence. NATIONAL TRENDS Overall, bachelor’s degrees in engineering have shown moderate growth over the last several years, with a compound annual growth rate of 5.5 percent across all fields (see Figure 1.1). Figure 1.1: National Engineering Bachelor’s Degree Completions, All Fields 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 TOTAL CAGR AAC STDEV 70,832 74,490 78,151 83,353 87,903 394,729 5.5% 4,267.8 650.5 Source: IPEDS The overall growth of engineering degree programs is reflected in the trends of particular subfields as well. In terms of raw completions, traditional engineering fields, such as mechanical engineering, civil engineering, electrical engineering, and chemical engineering, remain the most popular majors (Figure 1.2). However, several emerging fields, such as environmental engineering, polymer/plastics engineering, and petroleum engineering have shown especially strong growth over the last five years (Figure 1.3). Some caution is warranted, however, in assessing the opportunity that some of these fields provide for a new program, given the comparatively small number of completions in several of these high-growth fields. Fields that consistently show both high numbers of completions and strong growth include chemical engineering, bioengineering/biomedical engineering, and environmental engineering. Figure 1.2: Top Engineering Bachelor’s Degrees by 2013 Headcount, National DEGREE PROGRAM 14.1901 Mechanical Engineering 14.0801 Civil Engineering, General 14.1001 Electrical and Electronics Engineering 14.0701 Chemical Engineering 14.0501 Bioengineering and Biomedical Engineering 14.0901 Computer Engineering, General 14.3501 Industrial Engineering 14.0201 Aerospace, Aeronautical and Astronautical/Space Engineering 14.0101 Engineering, General 14.1401 Environmental/Environmental Health Engineering Source: IPEDS 2009 17,663 10,822 2010 18,867 11,435 2011 19,569 12,605 2012 20,977 12,796 2013 22,388 13,314 CAGR 6.1% 5.3% AAC 1,181.3 623.0 STDEV 289.1 352.5 12,134 11,792 11,882 12,484 13,172 2.1% 259.5 415.8 5,176 5,822 6,391 7,149 7,572 10.0% 599.0 121.8 3,766 3,854 4,105 4,537 4,931 7.0% 291.3 135.4 3,834 3,984 4,021 4,381 4,705 5.3% 217.8 131.1 3,012 3,183 3,221 3,571 3,747 5.6% 183.8 110.8 3,077 3,247 3,388 3,614 3,571 3.8% 123.5 100.9 2,094 2,080 2,108 2,177 2,217 1.4% 30.8 29.8 598 662 763 1,015 1,213 19.3% 153.8 74.9 Figure 1.3: Top Engineering Bachelor’s Degrees by CAGR, National DEGREE PROGRAM 14.1401 Environmental/Environmental Health Engineering 14.3201 Polymer/Plastics Engineering 14.2501 Petroleum Engineering 14.1801 Materials Engineering 14.2301 Nuclear Engineering 14.0701 Chemical Engineering 14.2101 Mining and Mineral Engineering 14.0501 Bioengineering and Biomedical Engineering 14.0903 Computer Software Engineering 14.2201 Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 CAGR AAC STDEV 598 662 763 1,015 1,213 19.3% 153.8 74.9 67 690 708 377 5,176 75 779 922 410 5,822 90 1,018 907 473 6,391 104 1,068 1,055 555 7,149 112 1,130 1,129 595 7,572 13.7% 13.1% 12.4% 12.1% 10.0% 11.3 110.0 105.3 54.5 599.0 3.3 75.8 85.3 19.4 121.8 176 197 226 250 239 7.9% 15.8 15.7 3,766 3,854 4,105 4,537 4,931 7.0% 291.3 135.4 463 571 630 594 595 6.5% 33.0 55.0 325 341 365 386 412 6.1% 21.8 3.8 Source: IPEDS REGIONAL TRENDS For purposes of compiling completion statistics, NCES places Pennsylvania in the Mideast region, which also includes Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, and the District of Columbia. Within the Mideast region, engineering bachelor’s degree conferrals have grown at a slightly slower rate than seen at the national level, with a compound annual growth rate across all engineering fields of 5.2 percent (Figure 1.4). Figure 1.4: Engineering Bachelor’s Degree Completions, Mideast Region 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 TOTAL CAGR AAC STDEV 12,296 12,920 13,322 14,317 15,085 67,940 5.2% 697.3 215.8 Source: IPEDS As at the national level, established fields, such as mechanical, electrical, civil, and chemical engineering, have the greatest number of completions (Figure 1.5 on the following page). Growth rates of individual fields in the Mideast are also commensurate with national data, with petroleum engineering, environmental engineering, naval engineering, and nuclear engineering among the fastest-growing degree programs (Figure 1.6 on the following page). Figure 1.5: Top Engineering Bachelor’s Degrees by 2013 Headcount, Regional DEGREE PROGRAM 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 CAGR AAC STDEV 14.1901 Mechanical Engineering 14.1001 Electrical and Electronics Engineering 14.0801 Civil Engineering, General 3,046 3,213 3,296 3,558 3,927 6.6% 220 107 2,041 2,092 2,159 2,230 2,240 2.4% 50 24 1,581 1,732 1,860 1,831 1,923 5.0% 86 69 14.0701 Chemical Engineering 14.0501 Bioengineering and Biomedical Engineering 14.0901 Computer Engineering, General 14.3501 Industrial Engineering 14.0201 Aerospace, Aeronautical and Astronautical/Space Engineering 14.0101 Engineering, General 14.1401 Environmental/Environmental Health Engineering 1,122 1,237 1,307 1,392 1,491 7.4% 92 17 864 881 906 1,031 1,062 5.3% 50 44 630 612 602 670 693 2.4% 16 34 424 470 420 513 539 6.2% 29 52 394 414 435 456 454 3.6% 15 10 270 297 301 361 331 5.2% 15 33 161 168 203 243 327 19.4% 42 28 Source: IPEDS Figure 1.6: Top Engineering Bachelor’s Degrees by CAGR, Regional DEGREE PROGRAM 2009 2010 2012 2012 2013 CAGR AAC STDEV 14.2501 Petroleum Engineering 14.1401 Environmental/Environmental Health Engineering 14.2301 Nuclear Engineering 14.0601 Ceramic Sciences and Engineering 14.9999 Engineering, Other 14.2201 Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering 14.0701 Chemical Engineering 15 21 32 37 70 47.0% 14 11 161 168 203 243 327 19.4% 42 28 73 96 107 125 129 15.3% 14 7 27 34 23 32 47 14.9% 5 10 74 81 77 106 124 13.8% 13 12 124 128 149 172 175 9.0% 13 9 1,122 1,237 1,307 1,392 1,491 7.4% 92 17 14.0301 Agricultural Engineering 164 152 173 217 213 6.8% 12 22 14.1901 Mechanical Engineering 3046 3213 3296 3558 3927 6.6% 220 107 14.3501 Industrial Engineering 424 470 420 513 539 6.2% 29 52 Source: IPEDS Of the engineering CIP classifications that are among the highest growth fields in the Mideast region, two in particular are unlikely to reflect any important trends. The first, “14.9999 Engineering, Other,” is a catch-all category for degree programs that do not fit clearly into one of the other CIP classifications. Therefore its place among the fastestgrowing fields likely does not represent an increase in popularity of any particular degree program. The second, “14.0601 Ceramic Sciences and Engineering,” exhibited a 14.9 percent compound annual growth rate during the years studied. While the field meets this report’s criterion for inclusion (with at least 20 graduates in 2013), the small overall size of the field makes the compound annual growth rate sensitive to small fluctuations, even in a single program in a single year. Ceramic engineering’s high growth rate is primarily due to a jump from 32 to 47 graduates over 2012–2013; over that same year, the number of ceramic engineering graduates at Alfred University in New York grew from eight to 17.1 Given these considerations, there do not appear to be any significant region-specific trends (i.e., trends distinct from those seen at the national level) in the demand for engineering degree programs. PENNSYLVANIA COMPLETIONS Growth for engineering degrees in Pennsylvania slightly lags growth seen at the national level, with a compound annual growth rate of 4.5 percent (Figure 1.7). Figure 1.7: Pennsylvania Engineering Bachelor’s Degree Completions 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 TOTAL CAGR AAC STDEV 4,369 4,578 4,594 4,880 5,203 23,624 4.5% 208.5 118.5 Source: IPEDS Again, traditional fields have the greatest number of degree completions during the time period examined. Among the top 10 fields by number of completions, the fastest growing fields are environmental, general, and mechanical engineering (Figure 1.8). These three fields also appear in Figure 1.9, which details the fastest-growing fields in Pennsylvania. The particular fields with the highest growth rates are petroleum, mining/mineral, and nuclear engineering, though again these fields confer a relatively small proportion of degrees overall. 1 “Enrollment and Graduation Data.” Inamori School of Engineering, Alfred University. http://engineering.alfred.edu/undergrad/docs/abet-census-data.pdf Figure 1.8: Top Engineering Bachelor’s Degree in Pennsylvania by 2013 Headcount DEGREE PROGRAM Mechanical Engineering Electrical and Electronics Engineering Civil Engineering, General Chemical Engineering Bioengineering and Biomedical Engineering Industrial Engineering Computer Engineering, General Engineering, General Architectural Engineering Environmental/Environmental Health Engineering 2009 1,039 675 644 444 2010 1,067 738 663 481 2011 1,083 755 691 466 2012 1,154 804 635 532 2013 1,340 752 655 515 CAGR 6.6% 2.7% 0.4% 3.8% AAC 75.3 19.3 2.8 17.8 STDEV 67.1 44.4 34.1 35.3 313 319 295 330 351 2.9% 9.5 21.9 209 234 118 150 239 218 126 157 206 182 132 157 241 190 147 144 259 203 170 152 5.5% -3.5% 9.6% 0.3% 12.5 -7.8 13.0 0.5 27.0 19.7 6.7 8.4 54 46 53 65 89 13.3% 8.8 11.5 Source: IPEDS Figure 1.9: Top Engineering Bachelor’s Degree in Pennsylvania by CAGR DEGREE PROGRAM Petroleum Engineering Engineering, Other Mining and Mineral Engineering Nuclear Engineering Agricultural Engineering Computer Software Engineering Environmental/Environmental Health Engineering Engineering Science Engineering, General Mechanical Engineering 2009 15 25 5 35 20 29 2010 21 33 6 50 25 31 2011 32 36 9 62 34 23 2012 37 62 13 83 45 36 2013 70 79 13 84 43 60 CAGR 47.0% 33.3% 27.0% 24.5% 21.1% 19.9% AAC 13.8 13.5 2.0 12.3 5.8 7.8 STDEV 11.3 8.8 1.6 7.3 5.0 12.0 54 46 53 65 89 13.3% 8.8 11.5 26 118 1,039 29 126 1,067 26 132 1,083 45 147 1,154 40 170 1,340 11.4% 9.6% 6.6% 3.5 13.0 75.3 9.4 6.7 67.1 Source: IPEDS DEMAND BY STUDENT TYPE Because Clarion University has expressed interest in the engineering program features likely to be attractive to several particular student demographics, this subsection includes information on the needs and interests of male students, transfer students, online students, and veterans/military personnel in engineering bachelor’s degree programs. Where quantitative data are not available, we rely on secondary research on best practices for attracting and supporting these students in engineering programs. MEN Engineering programs nationwide tend to be male-dominated,2 with 80.6 percent of all engineering degrees from 2009 to 2013 awarded to men, according to IPEDS data. The highest concentrations of male graduates occur in computer-related fields, as shown in Figure 1.10. There is little research on engineering program features that attract men because most attention has been directed toward increasing the proportion of women in such programs.3 Figure 1.10: Engineering Majors with Highest Concentration of Men in 2013, National DEGREE PROGRAM TOTAL GRADUATES MALE GRADUATES % MEN Computer Software Engineering 595 545 91.6% Construction Engineering 413 378 91.5% Electrical, Electronics and Communications Engineering, Other 65 59 90.8% Computer Engineering, General 4,705 4,239 90.1% Engineering Mechanics 94 83 88.3% Electrical and Electronics Engineering 13,172 11,611 88.1% Mechanical Engineering 22,388 19,685 87.9% Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering 412 362 87.9% Mining and Mineral Engineering 239 209 87.4% Petroleum Engineering 1,130 975 86.3% Source: IPEDS TRANSFER STUDENTS According to a 2014 literature review by Andrea Ogilvie, a doctoral researcher at Virginia Tech University, research on the needs and experiences of transfer students in engineering programs can be divided into two areas: research on students transferring from four-year institutions and research on students transferring from community colleges.4 Ogilvie notes that there is a substantial body of literature on community college (or “vertical”) transfers but very little work on transfers between four-year colleges (“lateral” transfers).5 The existing literature on the experiences of community college transfers to engineering bachelor’s degree programs suggests several lessons for institutions wishing to provide a supportive environment for such students. In 2011, a team of researchers at Iowa State University studied the experiences of 157 community college students who had transferred 2 “Science and Engineering Indicators 2012: Chapter 2, Higher Education in Science and Engineering.” National Science Foundation. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind12/c2/c2s2.htm 3 See, for example: St. Rose, A. “STEM Major Choice and the Gender Pay Gap.” Association of American Colleges and Universities. http://www.aacu.org/ocww/volume39_1/feature.cfm?section=1 4 Ogilvie, A. “A Review of the Literature on Transfer Student Pathways to Engineering Degrees.” 121st ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, June, 2014. http://www.asee.org/public/conferences/32/papers/9849/view 5 Ibid., pp. 2-3. to the engineering program at a Midwestern university.6 The students reported generally positive experiences, and the researchers conclude that “overall, transfer students in Engineering majors are adjusting well to the university environment.” 7 However, the researchers did find that 38 percent of transfer students felt that university students attached a stigma to beginning at a community college, and a similar number (33 percent) felt that their abilities were underestimated because of their transfer status.8 Therefore, institutions should seek to ensure that transfer students are afforded the same respect and recognition as other students. When asked what advice they would give to other students transferring to an engineering program from a community college, the students in the Iowa State study emphasized the importance of talking with an academic advisor, getting involved on campus, and making sure that community college credits will transfer to the university.9 This suggests that community college transfer students will find the transition to a university engineering program easiest if they have ready access to academic advisors, clear guidelines about transfer credits, and ample opportunity to become involved on campus. Again, there is little research on students making “lateral” transfers between four-year institutions. One notable trend in the field of engineering, however, is the prevalence of dual-degree (or “3-2”) collaborative programs. In these programs, students spend three years completing general education requirements and “pre-engineering” courses in science and math at one institution. Then, they transfer to a second institution to complete two years of engineering-focused courses.10 Students in such programs typically receive two degrees—for example, one in math or physics from the “sending” institution and one in engineering from the “receiving” institution. It is common for both sending and receiving institutions to establish “3-2” articulation agreements with multiple partner institutions. Pennsylvania State University, for example, receives students from 16 other institutions (15 in Pennsylvania),11 while the State University of New York at Fredonia sends students to 14 other institutions.12 Because research on lateral transfers is scarce, there is little information available on the particular degree types or program features likely to be of particular interest to transfer students. As with “vertical” transfers from community colleges, however, researchers have observed that complicated or confusing credit transfer procedures—even when a formal 6 Laanan, F.S., D.L. Jackson, and D.T. Rover. “Engineering Transfer Students: Characteristics, Experiences, and Student Outcomes.” American Society for Engineering Education. http://www.asee.org/public/conferences/1/papers/1250/download 7 Ibid., p. 13. 8 Ibid., p. 8 9 Ibid., p. 12. 10 Shealy, E., et al. “A Descriptive Study of Engineering Transfer Students at Four Institutions: Comparing Lateral and Vertical Transfer Pathways.” 120th ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, 2013. p. 4. 11 “Dual Degree Institutions” Pennsylvania State University. http://www.engr.psu.edu/FutureStudents/Undergraduate/Transfer/DualDegree/Institutions.aspx 12 “Cooperative Engineering.” SUNY Fredonia. http://www.fredonia.edu/department/physics/engineer.asp articulation agreement exists, as in “3-2” programs—are a significant challenge for students making lateral transfers.13 Again, providing clear information on credit transfer procedures and supporting students through the process will likely make engineering degree programs more attractive to lateral transfer students. ONLINE STUDENTS Despite the general growth of online degree programs, there are relatively few fully-online engineering programs. According to ABET, an accrediting body for degree programs in engineering and technology, there are only seven institutions in the United States with fullyonline, ABET-accredited bachelor’s degree programs in one or more engineering fields.14 A total of 32 online bachelor’s degree programs in engineering have been reported by 23 institutions to the NCES, indicating that—even putting accreditation standards aside—few institutions have found it feasible to offer fully-online engineering bachelor’s degrees. One likely reason for the relative scarcity of online engineering programs is that many engineering courses include lab components, which typically require expensive equipment and close supervision from skilled educators.15 Some institutions have begun to experiment with offering lab-based courses online by, for example, having students purchase inexpensive equipment in order to complete lab exercises at home. Educators have reported significant drawbacks to the course formats that have been attempted thus far, however.16 One program model with potential for addressing this challenge involves a partnership between two institutions, one providing online instruction in advanced engineering topics and the other providing laboratory facilities and hands-on learning activities for students. This model is used in the partnership between Frostburg State University and the University of Maryland, which is profiled in Section III of this report.17 Such a delivery option also indicates that one institution could itself offer both online and in-person instruction in an engineering bachelor’s program, thus reducing the time students must be on-campus (if this is a desired goal). VETERANS AND MILITARY SERVICE PERSONNEL The National Science Foundation (NSF) has argued that the large population of post-9/11 veterans represents a promising resource for fulfilling the national workforce shortages in STEM fields. According to NSF, “[p]ost-9/11 veterans offer the nation’s engineering and 13 Shealy et al., Op. cit., p. 4. “Online Programs.” ABET. http://www.abet.org/online-programs/ 15 Pintong, K. and D. Summerville. “Transitioning a Lab-Based Course to an On-Line Format.” American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference, June, 2011. http://www.asee.org/public/conferences/1/papers/532/view 16 Ibid. 17 Undergraduate Engineering Programs.” Frostburg State University. http://www.frostburg.edu/dept/engn/ 14 science employers a diverse and pre-qualified pool of future talent.”18 In addition to the match between veterans’ skills and training and national workforce needs, a 2008 update to the GI Bill provides additional educational benefits for veterans, resulting in further opportunities for veterans to earn college degrees.19 However, both veterans and active-duty military personnel face unique challenges in adapting to higher education environments, and they can experience particular difficulties in pursuing engineering degrees. In addition to the various challenges that confront veterans entering all areas of higher education, two issues in particular create barriers for veterans and military personnel seeking to earn engineering degrees: lack of academic credit for technical skills acquired during military service and lack of advanced mathematics training while on active duty. These two challenges were highlighted in a 2011 study by a team of researchers at Pennsylvania State University’s Center for the Study of Higher Education.20 Interviews with veteran students in engineering programs revealed that they were highly frustrated by their institutions’ unwillingness to award credit for military training, and degree program administrators often noted veterans’ lack of math prerequisites. Resources exist for aiding institutions in addressing these challenges, and several institutions have taken steps both to ease veterans’ transition to engineering programs and to reduce their time to degree. Regarding credit for military training, the American Council on Education (ACE) evaluates military training and experience for academic credit and makes credit recommendations that institutions can use to guide the process of mapping military training to academic engineering curricula.21 Regarding math prerequisites, the Penn State researchers suggest that institutions can provide opportunities for active duty personnel to take advanced math courses so that they are prepared to begin progress toward an engineering degree immediately upon leaving active duty. In addition to offering on-site math courses, institutions can offer online courses that are easier for active duty servicemembers to access or partner with community colleges to offer prerequisite mathematics courses for active or retired servicemembers who will be entering an engineering bachelor’s program.22 18 “Veterans Education for Engineering and Science.” National Science Foundation, 2009. p. 6. http://www.nsf.gov/eng/eec/VeteranEducation.pdf 19 “Attracting Student Veterans to Science and Engineering Degree Fields.” Florida Senate Committee on Military Affairs, Space, and Domestic Security, September, 2011. p. 4. http://www.flsenate.gov/PublishedContent/Session/2012/InterimReports/2012-133ms.pdf 20 Heller, D. et al. “Veterans’ Education in Science and Engineering: Evaluation Design.” Pennsylvania State University Center for the Study of Higher Education Working Paper, July, 2011. https://www.ed.psu.edu/cshe/workingpapers/wp-10 21 Witcham, M. “Academic Recognition of Military Experience in STEM Education.” American Council on Education, June, 2013. p. 1. http://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Documents/Academic-Recognition-of-Military-Experiencein-STEM-Education.pdf 22 Heller et al., Op. cit., p. 50. In addition to addressing these two specific challenges, institutions can offer more general support to veterans as well. The NSF has outlined a series of recommendations for helping veterans to attain engineering degrees,23 and in 2009, it awarded grants to 16 colleges and universities to develop programs to aid veterans in pursuing engineering degrees.24 The NSF’s recommendations for programs to provide an enriching and supportive environment for veteran engineering students include: 25     Programs should run for the full academic year, allowing veterans to complete their degrees needing only four years of financial support. Institutions should develop agreements with public- and private-sector organizations to provide paid internships and research opportunities specifically for veterans. Institutions should establish support structures for the particular needs of veterans, including financial aid information, disability services, student veterans’ organizations, and family support services. Faculty members who will be involved in educating veterans should receive special training in recognizing and responding to veterans’ unique needs. A 2011 report by the Florida Senate made similar recommendations to those of the NSF and also recommended that higher education institutions establish a dedicated staff position “responsible for STEM outreach services targeting veterans.”26 With support from NSF grants, a number of institutions have already launched special programs designed to attract and retain veterans in engineering programs.27 As shown in the brief profiles presented below, these programs implement several of the recommendations discussed above:   23 University of San Diego (USD) hosts a program that “seeks to improve veterans’ ability to join the engineering workforce by creating customized engineering education opportunities for our returning veterans.”28 USD modified its recruitment, admissions, and advising procedures to better serve veterans, publicized campus support services for veterans, developed online resources to prepare incoming veteran students for the mathematics requirements of engineering courses, and established an advisory board of employers committed to hiring veterans. Kansas State University (KSU) offers an accelerated electrical engineering bachelor’s degree for veterans. KSU developed procedures for evaluating military training experiences to award academic credit for veterans’ pre-acquired skills and offers Ibid. Heller et al., Op. cit., p. 5. 25 “Veterans’ Education for Engineering and Science,” pp. 13-14. 26 “Attracting Student Veterans to Science and Engineering Degree Fields,” Op. cit. 27 Lord, S. et al. “Special Session – Attracting and Supporting Veterans in Engineering Programs.” ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, October, 2011. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=6142857 28 Ibid., p. 2. 24 accelerated courses specifically for veterans. KSU also works to provide veterans with information and support in finding internships and employment.   29 Mississippi State University (MSU) leads a consortium of institutions working to help veterans transition to STEM careers. Key components of the program are faculty mentors and a “buddy” system for veteran students, veteran-only STEM classes, and a “transition class” for veterans covering study skills and university structure. San Diego State University (SDSU) collaborates with local community colleges and industry partners to support veterans before, during, and after they earn their engineering bachelor’s degrees. Math courses at community colleges prepare veterans for college-level engineering coursework, while industry partners provide internships to veteran students as they complete their degrees.29 Ibid., pp. 2-3. EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS METHODOLOGY The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) and state departments of labor data follow a similar classification process to that of NCES and its CIP codes. For labor projections, the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code system is used to index occupations. When constructing labor market assessments, Hanover Research uses the CIP-SOC Crosswalk, provided by the NCES,30 to identify SOCs related to the academic fields of interest. Using this method, Hanover identified 26 occupational classifications for graduates with a bachelor’s degree in engineering, shown in Figure 2.1 (related occupational classifications most often requiring more than a bachelor’s degree, such as postsecondary teaching, were excluded). Figure 2.1: Engineering Occupations by SOC Code SOC 11-3051 11-9041 11-9121 13-1051 15-1132 15-1133 15-1143 15-2031 17-2011 17-2021 17-2031 17-2041 17-2051 17-2061 17-2071 17-2072 17-2081 17-2111 17-2112 17-2121 17-2131 17-2141 17-2151 17-2161 17-2171 17-2199 OCCUPATION Industrial Production Managers Architectural and Engineering Managers Natural Sciences Managers Cost Estimators Software Developers, Applications Software Developers, Systems Software Computer Network Architects Operations Research Analysts Aerospace Engineers Agricultural Engineers Biomedical Engineers Chemical Engineers Civil Engineers Computer Hardware Engineers Electrical Engineers Electronics Engineers, Except Computer Environmental Engineers Health and Safety Engineers, Except Mining Safety Engineers and Inspectors Industrial Engineers Marine Engineers and Naval Architects Materials Engineers Mechanical Engineers Mining and Geological Engineers, Including Mining Safety Engineers Nuclear Engineers Petroleum Engineers Engineers, All Other Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics 30 “Resources: 2000-2010 CIP Conversion.” National Center for Education Statistics. http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/cipcode/resources.aspx?y=55 NATIONAL LABOR PROJECTIONS Occupational projections on a national level demonstrate how the field is growing on a broad scale. Figure 2.2, on the following page, displays BLS projections for employment related to engineering from 2012 to 2022. Eleven of the 26 occupations exhibit expected growth greater than the national average of 10.8 percent. Occupations with particularly high projected growth include “Operations Research Analysts,” “Biomedical Engineers,” “Cost Estimators,” and “Petroleum Engineers.” PENNSYLVANIA EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS To provide a more geographically-specific picture of projected employment for graduates from an engineering program at Clarion University, Hanover Research analyzed 2010-20 employment projections from the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry. Note that because the years included in the statewide projections differ from those of the national BLS data, the two datasets are not directly comparable. As shown in Figure 2.3, two occupational areas are expected to see extremely rapid growth in the coming decade: petroleum engineering and biomedical engineering. Developers of systems software and cost estimators are also projected to see high levels of occupational growth. Figure 2.2: National Employment Projections, Engineering-Linked Occupations, 2012-2022 OCCUPATION TITLE Industrial Production Managers Architectural and Engineering Managers Natural Sciences Managers Cost Estimators Software Developers, Applications Software Developers, Systems Software Computer Network Architects Operations Research Analysts Aerospace Engineers Agricultural Engineers Biomedical Engineers Chemical Engineers Civil Engineers Computer Hardware Engineers Electrical Engineers Electronics Engineers, Except Computer Environmental Engineers Health and Safety Engineers, Except Mining Safety Engineers Industrial Engineers Marine Engineers and Naval Architects Materials Engineers Mechanical Engineers Mining and Geological Engineers, incl. Mining Safety Engineers Nuclear Engineers Petroleum Engineers Engineers, All Other Total, All Related Occupations Total, All Occupations Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics 31 2012 (000S) 2022 (000S) CHANGE (000S) CHANGE (%) 172.7 193.8 51.6 202.2 613.0 405.0 143.4 73.2 83.0 2.6 19.4 33.3 272.9 83.3 166.1 140.0 53.2 24.1 223.3 7.3 23.2 258.1 168.6 206.9 54.5 255.2 752.9 487.8 164.3 92.7 89.1 2.7 24.6 34.8 326.6 89.4 174.0 144.8 61.4 26.7 233.4 8.1 23.4 269.7 -4.1 13.1 2.9 53.0 139.9 82.8 20.9 19.5 6.1 0.1 5.2 1.5 53.7 6.2 7.9 4.8 8.1 2.6 10.1 0.8 0.2 11.6 -2.4% 6.7% 5.7% 26.2% 22.8% 20.4% 14.6% 26.7% 7.3% 4.8% 26.6% 4.5% 19.7% 7.4% 4.7% 3.4% 15.3% 11.0% 4.5% 10.3% 0.9% 4.5% AVG. ANNUAL OPENINGS (000S) 31.4 60.6 13.7 118.0 218.5 134.7 43.5 36.0 25.4 0.8 10.1 9.2 120.1 24.1 44.1 35.3 21.1 9.7 75.4 2.6 7.5 99.7 7.9 8.9 1.0 12.0% 3.0 20.4 38.5 133.0 3,444.5 22.3 48.4 138.1 3,909.3 1.9 9.8 5.1 464.7 9.3% 25.5% 3.8% 13.5% 7.1 19.6 29.5 1,200.7 145,355.8 160,983.7 15,628.0 10.8% 50,557.3 31 “Employment by Detailed Occupation.” BLS. http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_102.htm Figure 2.3: Pennsylvania Employment Projections 590 CHANGE (%) 8.8% AVG. ANNUAL OPENINGS 217 6,340 340 5.7% 151 1,880 2,020 140 7.4% 128 Cost Estimators 9,450 11,490 2,040 21.6% 386 Software Developers, Applications 14,760 16,570 1,810 12.3% 334 Software Developers, Systems Software 13,050 16,740 3,690 28.3% 505 Operations Research Analysts 1,960 2,090 130 6.6% 77 Aerospace Engineers 1,250 1,380 130 10.4% 41 Agricultural Engineers 40 40 0 0.0% 1 Biomedical Engineers 960 1,560 600 62.5% 81 Chemical Engineers 1,290 1,420 130 10.1% 54 Civil Engineers 12,830 14,450 1,620 12.6% 423 Computer Hardware Engineers 2,000 2,190 190 9.5% 66 Electrical Engineers 4,760 5,200 440 9.2% 159 Electronics Engineers, Except Computer 4,290 4,360 70 1.6% 111 Environmental Engineers Health & Safety Engineers, Except Mining Safety Engineers/Inspectors Industrial Engineers 2,530 2,840 310 12.3% 87 1,280 1,430 150 11.7% 43 10,930 12,140 1,210 11.1% 359 Marine Engineers & Naval Architects 50 40 -10 -20.0% 1 Materials Engineers 1,440 1,620 180 12.5% 57 Mechanical Engineers 10,790 11,840 1,050 9.7% 452 Mining & Geological Engineers, Incl. Mining Safety Engineers 620 710 90 14.5% 23 Nuclear Engineers 1,690 1,670 -20 -1.2% 37 Petroleum Engineers 240 420 180 75.0% 23 OCCUPATION TITLE 2010 2020 CHANGE Industrial Production Managers 6,700 7,290 Engineering Managers 6,000 Natural Sciences Managers Engineers, All Other 3,020 3,040 20 0.7% 68 Total, All Related Occupations 113,810 128,890 15,080 13.3% 3,884 5,983,460 6,363,730 380,270 6.4% 185,472 Total, All Occupations Source: Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry 32 32 “Long-Term Occupational Employment Projections.” Pennsylvania Department of Labor & Industry. http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt?open=514&objID=814813&mode=2 In this section, Hanover presents high-level information about student outcomes and the costs of establishing a new engineering program. Most of this section focuses on profiles of engineering programs at several possible competitors for a potential engineering bachelor’s degree program at Clarion University. These profiles feature programs that exhibit one or more of the following characteristics:    Offered at institutions that are geographically close to Clarion University Offered at institutions of similar size to Clarion University Focused on high-growth degree and employment fields STUDENT OUTCOMES All of the programs profiled share general, overall goals for student outcomes. As part of the accreditation process for engineering bachelor’s programs, ABET requires institutions to “define and refine objectives and outcomes” for graduates.33 ABET provides a standard list of objectives, and most engineering programs use this list as the basis for their program goals.34 A version of the following student objectives may be found on the websites of each of the programs profiled in this section, but standard goals are presented below:35            33 An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering An ability to communicate effectively An ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data An ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs within realistic constraints such as economic, environmental, social, political, ethical, health and safety, manufacturability, and sustainability An ability to function in multidisciplinary teams An ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems An understanding of professional and ethical responsibility The broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global, economic, environmental, and societal context A recognition of the need for and an ability to engage in life-long learning A knowledge of contemporary issues An ability to use the techniques, skills and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice “Assessment Planning.” ABET. http://www.abet.org/assessment-planning/ Felder, R. and R. Brent. “Designing and Teaching Courses to Satisfy the ABET Engineering Criteria. Journal of Engineering Education, 92:1, 2003. http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/Papers/ABET_Paper_(JEE).pdf 35 Taken verbatim – with some modifications to improve readability – from: Ibid., p. 2. 34 ENGINEERING PROGRAM START-UP COSTS Engineering programs are expensive to launch and maintain. In addition to faculty and other new program expenditures, laboratories play an important role in engineering education. However, there are some associated challenges with establishing, staffing, and running an engineering lab:36 Through systematically designed experiments, students can gain hands-on experience, enhance classroom learning, and cultivate career interests. However, traditional laboratory conduction is often restricted by various reasons such as facility cost, conflicted schedule, and limited space. One source indicates that an engineering lab with 10 workbenches costs between $50,000 and $100,000, and beyond initial costs, labs must update equipment as new technical advances are made and older equipment becomes obsolete.37 Start-up costs are significant. In 2013, Western Carolina University received more than $1.4 million from the state to expand its undergraduate engineering program. About $700,000 of the money was allotted for start-up costs and laboratory equipment, and the university would receive another approximately $720,000 in “recurring funds to cover faculty positions and ongoing operations.”38 Some academics and others in the field have proposed solutions that allow students to access lab time despite the expense and scheduling conflicts that engineering departments often face. For example, potential solutions such as enhancing engineering laboratory experiences through cloud computing39 or “labs in a box”40 have been proposed. Although additional research is required to provide a more in-depth examination of start-up and maintenance costs for specific types of engineering programs, Figure 3.1 presents the renovation costs for updating engineering laboratories at Texas Tech University’s Edward E. Whitacre Jr. College of Engineering. The total initiative cost $6.5 million, and the source includes the price of each piece of requested equipment or updates as part of the renovation. The $6.5 million includes updates to 20 labs, including new and updated equipment, but excludes start-up costs and expenses to maintain and run these laboratories.41 36 “Li, L., Y. Zhang, and L. Huang. “AC 2012-2974: Engineering Laboratory Enhancement Through Cloud Computing.” American Society for Engineering Education. 2012. 37 Restauri, D. “What’s the Next Big Thing for Engineering Students? A Lab That Fits in a Backpack.” Forbes. September 26, 2014. http://www.forbes.com/sites/deniserestauri/2013/09/26/whats-the-next-big-thing-for-engineeringstudents-a-lab-that-fits-in-a-backpack/ 38 “Budget Includes Funding for Expansion of Engineering Program to Biltmore Park.” Western Carolina University. August 5, 2013. http://news-prod.wcu.edu/2013/08/state-budget-includes-funding-for-engineering-program-atbiltmore-park/ 39 Li, Zhang, and Huang, Op. cit. 40 Restauri, Op. cit. 41 “Undergraduate Laboratory Renovation Initiative.” Texas Tech University. http://www.depts.ttu.edu/coe/dean/development/documents/Lab-Renovations.pdf Figure 3.1: Estimated Engineering Lab Renovation Costs, Texas Tech University LABORATORY Chemical Engineering Undergraduate Teaching Labs Civil and Environmental Engineering Environmental Engineering Teaching Laboratory Geotechnical Engineering Laboratory Structures Laboratory Mechanics of Fluids Laboratory Construction Materials and Mechanics of Solids Electrical and Computer Engineering ECE Undergraduate Laboratory Telecommunications and RF Laboratory Robotics, Controls & Mechatronics Laboratory Undergraduate Fabrication Facility Undergraduate Measurements Facility ELVIS II Labs Bioinstrumentation Lab MEMS Labs Optics & Photonics Lab Power Systems & Alternative Energy Lab Audiovisual, Studio & Collaborative Classrooms Construction Engineering and Engineering Technology Computer Labs Industrial Engineering Advanced Manufacturing Laboratory Ergonomics Laboratory Mechanical Engineering Mechanics and Materials Laboratory Dynamic Systems & Control Laboratory Machine Shop Laboratory Thermal Fluid Systems Laboratory Source: Texas Tech University42 42 Ibid. ESTIMATED RENOVATION COST $605,000 $605,000 $1,962,600 $321,500 $210,000 $668,300 $447,800 $315,000 $1,162,919 $58,500 $251,319 $359,000 $130,000 $283,200 -$60,000 $20,900 ---$140,000 $140,000 $1,572,500 $1,445,000 $127,500 $1,434,895 $295,000 $69,611 $900,745 $169,539 THE COLLEGE OF NEW JERSEY The College of New Jersey (TCNJ) is a public, four-year college located in Ewing, New Jersey, that currently enrolls approximately 6,135 full-time students.43 TCNJ was among the peer institutions identified in Clarion University’s 2010 self-study design proposal submitted to the Middle States Commission on Higher Education.44 TCNJ’s School of Engineering offers bachelor’s degrees in five engineering fields:      Biomedical Engineering, Civil Engineering, Computer Engineering, Electrical Engineering, and Mechanical Engineering.45 In addition to these core engineering degrees, the School of Engineering offers bachelor’s programs in engineering science management and STEM/technology education, which combine training in the fundamentals of engineering and technology with coursework in business and education, respectively.46 Figure 3.1 presents enrollment and completions data for the core engineering degrees at TCNJ in 2012-2013. Figure 3.1: Recent Graduation and Enrollment Data, School of Engineering, TCNJ PROGRAM Biomedical Engineering Civil Engineering Computer Engineering Electrical Engineering Mechanical Engineering 2012-2013 GRADUATES 30 35 6 5 36 FALL 2013 ENROLLMENT 113 111 55 68 121 Source: School of Engineering, The College of New Jersey47 Each of these programs requires students to complete a total of 39 course units, where one course unit is equivalent to four semester hours.48 Students across TCNJ’s engineering degree programs take a similar set of courses during the first year (Figure 3.2), with the 43 “At a Glance.” The College of New Jersey. http://tcnj.pages.tcnj.edu/about/at-a-glance/ “Self-Study Design.” Clarion University. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCcQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcl arion.edu%2F247524.doc&ei=z_v8U9jANdW0yAT65YIo&usg=AFQjCNHbrqbitSc0XmJCUKDiUAbePmW3qA&bvm=b v.73612305,d.aWw 45 “Departments and Academic Programs.” School of Engineering, The College of New Jersey. http://engineering.pages.tcnj.edu/departments-programs/ 46 Ibid. 47 “Graduation and Enrollment Data.” School of Engineering, The College of New Jersey. http://engineering.pages.tcnj.edu/about-the-school/graduation-and-enrollment-data/ 48 “School of Engineering Advising Guide.” School of Engineering, The College of New Jersey. p. 7. http://engineering.pages.tcnj.edu/files/2010/02/2012-2013-School-of-Engineering-Advising-Guide.pdf 44 curriculum for each degree diverging thereafter. In addition to core classes in physical sciences and calculus, first-year engineering students at TCNJ take two non-credit courses (graded on a pass/fail basis) designed to introduce them to the curriculum and the engineering profession.49 Figure 3.2: First-Year Courses for Engineering Students, TCNJ FALL General Physics I Calculus A Engineering Seminar I General Chemistry I Introduction to Engineering Fundamentals of Engineering Design or Computer Science I SPRING General Physics II Calculus B Engineering Seminar II Academic Writing Creative Design (General Chemistry II for Bioengineering program) Computer Science I or Fundamentals of Engineering Design Source: School of Engineering, The College of New Jersey BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING CURRICULUM Biomedical engineering is one of the fields that shows high numbers of completions and strong growth nationally. The required course distributions for the biomedical engineering degree at TCNJ are shown in Figure 3.3, while a detailed curriculum (beyond the first year) is presented in Figure 3.4. Figure 3.3: Course Distribution Requirements, Biomedical Engineering Degree, TCNJ COURSE DISTRIBUTION Mathematics Natural Science (Physics/Chemistry) Life Sciences Computer Science Biomedical Engineering Social Science/Humanities COURSE UNITS 5 5 2 1 20 6 Source: School of Engineering, The College of New Jersey50 The curriculum shown in Figure 3.4 is for the “mechanical” track within the biomedical engineering degree. TCNJ also offers an “electrical” track that substitutes certain courses, such as those in microprocessors and digital signal processing for those in statics and fluid mechanics.51 49 Kim, S. “Dr. Kim’s First-Year Students.” http://www.drseungkim.com/first_year.html “Biomedical Engineering Curriculum.” School of Engineering, The College of New Jersey. http://biomedicalengineering.pages.tcnj.edu/academic-programs/curriculum/ 51 “Bachelor of Science in Biomedical Engineering (BSBME) Electrical Option.” School of Engineering, College of New Jersey. http://electrical-computerengineering.pages.tcnj.edu/academic-programs/curriculum/electricalengineering-curriculum/ 50 Figure 3.4: Biomedical Engineering Curriculum, TCNJ FALL Themes in Biology Circuit Analysis Circuit Analysis Lab (0.5) Advanced Engineering Math I Statics -Engineering Seminar III (0) Organic Chemistry I Physiological Systems Physiological Systems Lab (0.5) Biology of the Eukaryotic Cell Society, Ethics, & Technology Thermodynamics I Senior Professional Seminar (0) Mechanical Design I Fluid Mechanics Introduction to Biomaterials Senior Project I (0) Liberal Learning Elective Biomedical Engineering Elective SPRING SOPHOMORE YEAR Fundamentals of Biomedical Engineering Creative Design Microeconomics Mechanical Engineering Laboratory I (0.5) Multivariable Calculus Strength of Materials JUNIOR YEAR Engineering Seminar IV (0) Advanced Engineering Math II Electronics Electrical Engineering Lab I (0.5) Biomechanics Physiological Systems II -SENIOR YEAR Fundamentals of Engineering Review (0) Engineering Economy Bioinstrumentation Senior Project II Liberal Learning Elective Biomedical Engineering Elective -- Source: School of Engineering, College of New Jersey52 FACULTY AND INSTITUTIONAL RESOURCES Each engineering department at TCNJ has a complement of full-time faculty and operates a number of laboratory facilities. All laboratories are used in the undergraduate curriculum, with many also supporting faculty research. Figure 3.5 shows the number of faculty appointments and the facilities operated by each department.53 52 “Bachelor of Science in Biomedical Engineering (BSBME) Mechanical Option.” School of Engineering, College of New Jersey. http://biomedicalengineering.pages.tcnj.edu/academic-programs/curriculum/bachelor-of-science-inbiomedical-engineering-bsbme/ 53 “Biomedical Engineering Faculty.” School of Engineering, The College of New Jersey. http://biomedicalengineering.pages.tcnj.edu/our-people/faculty/ Figure 3.5: Faculty Appointments and Lab Facilities, School of Engineering, TCNJ DEPARTMENT FACULTY APPOINTMENTS Biomedical Engineering Four full-time faculty; Two affiliated appointments in mechanical engineering Electrical and Computer Engineering Civil Engineering Mechanical Engineering Five full-time faculty; Two visiting faculty Five full-time faculty; Three adjunct faculty Eight full-time faculty; Three adjunct faculty FACILITIES                       Biomechanical Laboratory Bioinstrumentation Laboratory Physiological Systems Laboratory Circuits and Electronics Lab Computer Architecture and VLSI (Very-LargeScale Integration) Lab Controls Lab Digital Signals Processing Lab Image Processing Lab Embedded Systems Lab Microprocessor Lab RF/Communications Lab Robotics Lab Surveying/Transportation Laboratory Hydrology/Water Resources Laboratory Mechanics of Materials Laboratory Soil Mechanics Laboratory Civil Engineering Materials Laboratory Mechanics of Materials Lab Thermo-fluids Lab Biomechanics Lab Vibrations Lab Robotics Lab Manufacturing Processes Lab Source: School of Engineering, The College of New Jersey54 GANNON UNIVERSITY Gannon University is a private, four-year, Catholic university located in Erie, Pennsylvania. As of Fall 2013, Gannon enrolled 3,111 undergraduates.55 Gannon’s College of Engineering and Business offers bachelor’s degrees in:      54 55 Biomedical Engineering Electrical and Computer Engineering Environmental Engineering Mechanical Engineering Software Engineering56 Root page: “Departments and Academic Programs,” Op. cit. “About Gannon.” Gannon University. http://www.gannon.edu/About-Gannon/ Mechanical engineering is the most popular concentration for engineering students at Gannon, though the environmental engineering program has gained popularity in recent years, as shown in Figure 3.6. Figure 3.6 Engineering Degree Completion Data, Gannon University 2010-11 ENROLLMENT GRADUATES DEGREE Biomedical Engineering Electrical and Computer Engineering Environmental Engineering Mechanical Engineering Software Engineering 2011-12 ENROLLMENT GRADUATES 2012-13 2013-14 ENROLLMENT GRADUATES ENROLLMENT GRADUATES 12 0 8 0 13 1 - - 35 8 30 10 33 7 - - 14 0 16 2 20 6 32 - 83 12 79 17 88 17 - - 9 12 2 15 1 14 - 18 57 Source: Gannon University “-“ indicates no data available. ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING DEGREE Given the rapid growth of degree completions in environmental engineering and the expected strength of the job market for environmental engineers, this profile includes a full description of the stated program goals and curriculum of the environmental engineering bachelor’s program at Gannon University. In addition to the ABET standard objectives for engineering programs, the environmental engineering department defines a series of further education outcomes for students. According to these objectives, graduates of the program will:     56 Have engineering knowledge and skills that allow them to effectively begin a career as environmental engineers in consulting, industry, or government; Have an understanding of the scientific basis of engineering design and be prepared for graduate study in environmental engineering or a related field; Have a broad but individualized general education that fosters leadership, teamwork, ethics, and an understanding of the impact of their profession in a global and societal context; and Value professional development as evidenced by pursuit of graduate education, professional licensure, and/or membership in professional organizations.58 “Engineering and Business.” Gannon University. http://www.gannon.edu/Academic-Offerings/Engineering-andBusiness/ 57 See the Accreditation and Licensure pages for respective degree programs listed in ibid. 58 “Undergraduate Catalog 2014-2015.” Gannon University. pp. 146. http://issuu.com/gannonuniversity/docs/undergraduatecatalog2014/147?e=3615257/8289333 Figure 3.7 displays the full curriculum for the environmental engineering major. All courses are three credits unless otherwise noted. Figure 3.7: Environmental Engineering Curriculum, Gannon University MATH & BASIC SCIENCES: 37 CREDITS Calculus I Mol/Cellular Biology Calculus II Intro to Microbiology Calculus III Intro to Microbiology Lab (1 cr.) Differential Equations General Chemistry I Probability and Statistics General Chemistry I Lab (1 cr.) General Physics III General Chemistry II General Physics IV General Chemistry II Lab (1 cr.) Physics Lab (1 cr.) -GENERAL ENGINEERING: 13 CREDITS First-Year Seminar Digital Computer Usage Statics Digital Computer Usage Lab (1 cr.) Dynamics Engineering Thermodynamics ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES: 45 CREDITS Physical Geology Industrial Health I Physical Geology Lab (1 cr.) Environmental Law & Regulations Environmental Hydrology Water/Wastewater Engineering Environmental Hydrology Lab (1 cr.) Water/Wastewater Lab (1 cr.) Water Quality Soil & Groundwater Pollution Water Quality Lab (1 cr.) Fluid Mechanics and Water Systems Design Environmental Toxicology Fluid Mechanics & Water System Design Lab (1 cr.) Environmental Health Lab (1 cr.) Senior Design I Environmental Engineering Senior Design II Source: Gannon University59 FROSTBURG STATE UNIVERSITY Located in Frostburg, MD, Frostburg State University (FSU) is a public, four-year university with an enrollment of 4,704 undergraduates.60 FSU offers a Bachelor of Science degree in engineering, with concentrations in electrical engineering and materials engineering. In addition, FSU participates in a unique collaborative program with the University of Maryland, College Park, (UMD) that allows students to obtain a mechanical engineering degree from UMD while spending four years on the FSU campus.61 In this profile, Hanover Research summarizes the key features of the electrical and materials engineering curriculum and describes FSU’s partnership arrangement with the University of Maryland. 59 Ibid., pp. 147-148. “Undergraduate Admissions.” Frostburg State University. http://www.frostburg.edu/ungrad/admiss/ 61 Undergraduate Engineering Programs.” Frostburg State University. http://www.frostburg.edu/dept/engn/ 60 MECHANICAL ENGINEERING PARTNERSHIP WITH UMD Students in FSU’s collaborative mechanical engineering program begin with two years of general education and engineering science courses at FSU, during which time they are designated as “pre-engineering” majors. Students may then apply for admission to UMD’s School of Engineering. If accepted, they will be designated as engineering majors at UMD for their final two years of study. During these final two years, students remain on the FSU campus and complete laboratory and project courses taught by FSU faculty but complete online, upper-level engineering courses taught by faculty at UMD. At the end of four years of study, students receive a Bachelor of Science degree in mechanical engineering from UMD. Students must satisfy all UMD general education requirements, and, during the time they are designated as UMD students, pay UMD’s tuition rates and must apply for scholarships and financial aid from UMD, rather than FSU.62 While FSU students may also participate in a more traditional, institutional-transfer “3-2” program with UMD to earn degrees in other engineering disciplines over five years, the mechanical engineering program is unique in allowing students to earn an engineering bachelor’s degree in four years while remaining on a single campus. ELECTRICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONCENTRATIONS Figure 3.8 shows the enrollment and completions data for FSU’s complete engineering programs. Mechanical engineering graduates are excluded because these data are mixed into UMD’s general completions data, and FSU offers no indication of the size of that program. Figures 3.9 and 3.10 detail the credit hour requirements and specific courses required for FSU’s engineering programs. The core requirements in Figure 3.10 are substantially identical to those of UMD’s for the mechanical engineering program, though some courses are titled or placed differently.63 Figure 3.8: Recent Enrollment and Graduation Data, Frostburg State University CONCENTRATION Electrical Materials FALL 2013 ENROLLMENT 23 162 2012-2013 DEGREES AWARDED 10 5 Source: Frostburg State University64 62 “2013-2015 Undergraduate Catalog: Mechanical Engineering Collaborative Program.” Frostburg State University. http://www.frostburg.edu/fsu/assets/File/dept/pdf/mengi.pdfhttp://www.frostburg.edu/fsu/assets/File/dept/pd f/mengi.pdf 63 “2013-2015 Undergraduate Catalog: Mechanical Engineering.” Frostburg State University. http://www.frostburg.edu/fsu/assets/File/dept/pdf/mengi.pdf 64 There is no explanation regarding why so many are enrolled in Materials Engineering with so few graduates; this could be a typographical error in source. “Enrollment and Graduation Data.” Department of Engineering, Frostburg State University. http://www.frostburg.edu/fsu/assets/File/dept/engn/Engineering_Majors_and_Degrees_AwardedFall_2013_Enrollment-Concentrations.pdf Figure 3.9: Engineering Degree Course Distribution Requirements CONCENTRATIONS HOURS IN ENGINEERING HOURS IN OTHER DISCIPLINES TOTAL HOURS Electrical 42-44 47 89-91 Materials 47 40 87 Mechanical (collaborative program) 66 40 106 Source: Frostburg State University65 Figure 3.10: Engineering Curriculum CORE COURSES – ALL MAJORS (56 HOURS) Introduction to Engineering Design Programming Concepts for Engineers Calculus I Calculus II Calculus III Differential Equations General Chemistry Principles of Physics I – Mechanics Principles of Physics II – E&M Principles of Physics III – Acoustics & Optics Principles of Physics IV – Thermo. And Mod. Physics Electronics and Instrumentation I Electronics & Instrumentation II Seminar Capstone Design Project Fundamentals of Energy Engineering ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING (33-35 HOURS) Electricity and Magnetism Basic Circuit Theory Fund. Digital and Electrical Circuits Lab Digital Logic Design Analog and Digital Electronics Electronic Circuits Lab Computer Organization Mechatronic and Robotic Design Topics in Signal Processing Power Electronics Two electives from 300- or 400-level science/engineering courses MATERIALS ENGINEERING (31 HOURS) Statics Mechanics of Materials Dynamics Thermodynamics Fluid Mechanics Transfer Processes Engineering Materials and Manufacturing Fundamentals of Materials Engineering Two electives from 300- or 400-level science/engineering courses Source: Frostburg State University66 65 “2013-2015 Undergraduate Catalog: Engineering Major.” Frostburg State University. http://www.frostburg.edu/fsu/assets/File/dept/pdf/engi.pdf 66 Ibid. Hanover Research is committed to providing a work product that meets or exceeds partner expectations. In keeping with that goal, we would like to hear your opinions regarding our reports. Feedback is critically important and serves as the strongest mechanism by which we tailor our research to your organization. When you have had a chance to evaluate this report, please take a moment to fill out the following questionnaire. http://www.hanoverresearch.com/evaluation/index.php The publisher and authors have used their best efforts in preparing this brief. The publisher and authors make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this brief and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of fitness for a particular purpose. There are no warranties which extend beyond the descriptions contained in this paragraph. No warranty may be created or extended by representatives of Hanover Research or its marketing materials. The accuracy and completeness of the information provided herein and the opinions stated herein are not guaranteed or warranted to produce any particular results, and the advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for every partner. Neither the publisher nor the authors shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages. Moreover, Hanover Research is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting, or other professional services. Partners requiring such services are advised to consult an appropriate professional. 1700 K Street, NW, 8th Floor Washington, DC 20006 P 202.559.0500 F 866.808.6585 www.hanoverresearch.com