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