2011 SFC ME Committee

1. 2011 SFC ME Committee 04/06/2011 1:30-4:00pm

2. Tasks • Identify major issues within the ME major • Core curriculum (ME required) • Summer research • Student-faculty interaction • Seminar classes • Survey the ME undergrads to get their opinions • Propose viable solutions to these issues

3. Data • 2010 Senior Exit Survey • All options • ME • TQFR (ME core classes) • Only ratings; no comments • Donut Survey (created specifically for this committee) • ~43% response rate (out of all declared ME undergrads) • Includes: courses, student faculty interaction, undergraduate research, and seminar course

4. Student Faculty interaction • Students go to TA’s OH instead of prof’s • OHs are primarily used for guidance on problem sets • Students are moderately comfortable in approaching professors • Many professors look forward to interacting with students in a more casual manner • Faculty recommends that each student should get to know at least three profs for references and advice

5. Recommendation: How to improve the interaction • 1 student-faculty social activity per quarter • Option Tea (Chris is talking to the MOSH about reinstating this) • Design Contest (Organized by ASME) • Day-time activity, i.e. field trip, SOPS Barbecue, etc • Professor hold OHs: • Professor OH (perhaps once a term) open to all ME undergrads • Present potential research opportunities • Discuss certain topics in-depth • Recommend 5-10min meetings with prof

6. Recommendation 2: How to improve the interaction • Better publicity of events • notify at least 1 week beforehand and follow up with a reminder • UG-spam through the ME secretaries • House-lists • Dinner announcements • Personal invitation

7. Core Curriculum: CDS 110a • PowerPoint lectures were not very helpful for problem sets • Application of material was not really discussed during lectures • Some TAs were not prepared/helpful during office hour

8. Recommendation: How to Improve CDS 110 • More material on the PowerPoint • Utilize “Piazzza”, a software that allows the users to create a forum where students can get their questions answered in a timely manner • More user-friendly than moodle • More oversight on TAs

9. Core Curriculum: ME 35 • The material in 35a are somewhat repetitive of core physics and even high school physics • 35b becomes very difficult after midterm (frame of references, etc) • Some are concerned about the non-collaboration policy; this is no longer in place for the current year • Some TAs were not helpful/prepared

10. Recommendation: How to Improve ME 35 • Tentative: to restructure the course (this is somewhat implemented this year) • 35a material introduced more quickly • Adding certain elements of 35c, i.e. material properties, to the end of 35a • 35b go through particle dynamics quickly • 35b spend more time on frames of references • More oversight on TAs

11. Core Curriculum: ME 19 • For 19b, there were very little text to accompany the course material • PowerPoint lectures: • Lecture were explained quickly (little time/incentive to take notes) • Hard to follow after the lecture (while doing sets) • Problem sets were difficult • Hard to start without hints from TAs

12. Recommendation: How to Improve ME 19 • More material on the PowerPoint—more words explaining the steps and show more steps of the proofs • For conciseness, post separate hand outs for proofs that do not need to be gone through in great detail in class, or for a collection of important concepts • (It is hard to find a good fluid textbook) we recommend finding a collection of texts/articles/web tutorials • Problem sets less proof-based and more application-based

13. ME 72 • 72a started slowly; the contest rules were not finalized early on during the term • Hard to design/build • Irregular shop hours

14. Recommendation How to improve ME 72 • Regarding irregular shop hours (we understand the difficulty of implementation): • The problem was somewhat alleviated by calling another person to oversee the shop • This only occurred during later on in 72b • Look for consistency (i.e. the shop can open from 11am-5pm as long as it stays consistent to a certain schedule) • Night time hours are extremely helpful • Recommend weekend hours as well • Recommend finalizing the rules before the start of the first term so students can hit the ground running.

15. Undergraduate Research • 1/3 of the times students look for but do not find projects • Project satisfaction rate: <50% • <50% projects were educational or useful • Professors don’t post AOs • Those that do get an overwhelming response • Some students don’t get replies • Students are interested in more robotics research opportunities • Biggest problem: hard to find the right mentor/projects

16. Recommendation: How to improve Student-Mentor matching • Pre-screening process: • ME profs should post their AOs at least 1 month before the proposals are due • Allow 1 week for the students to respond • Contact qualified individuals to work on proposal • Student responses can be set up in many ways, for example: • ME AOs will also be placed in the secretaries’ office (Chris Silva and Cheryl Greer) • ME undergrads can submit their resume with additional project-specific responses to the secretaries (hard copies) • Include a link to a survey within the AO

17. Recommendation 2: How to improve Student-Mentor matching • For JPL, only post those who truly have an opening • More accurate listing of expected work • Programming vs building, etc • Open up SOPS talks to undergrads • In the fall, the profs talk about their research • Winter and spring, graduate students • Maybe technical • May need a bigger room

18. Research Seminar Course • No ME/AE seminar course offered • Current SOPS fall term • According to our own survey: • 56% (of the people surveyed) want an option-specific seminar course • 63% (of the people surveyed) want to include AE should this course be established • Topics of interest: • Robotics (navigation, vision, manipulation, sensing, etc) • Industrial Engineering/Product Design/Development • Current rovers

19. Recommendation: To implement a new Me Course • A few ways of resolving this • Make Fall SOPS talks into a seminar course for undergrads • Contact E1 organizer to get more ME/AE speakers • Create a new seminar course: • Speakers: • Faculty members • ASME speakers/Ken Pickar speakers • JPL personnel • Local contacts in the ME Industry • Re-establish the GALCIT Seminar Series

20. 2009 SFC ME Summary • Some highlights of accomplishments: • 5-10min chat with students at the beginning of term – highly positive reviews • Implementing ME 170 Introduction to Mechanical Prototyping • Alleviates the pressure of teaching students how to machine in ME 71 along with CAD and design processes. • ME 65 • Centralized online text book • Notes are extremely organized and helpful

21. Acknowledgements Faculty: Students: Prof. Tim Colonius (Co-Chair) Yichuan Sun (Jr) Prof. Melany Hunt Christopher Hallacy (Jr) Prof. Kaushik Bhattacharya Kristen Dahl (Jr) Prof. GuruswamiRavichandran Abel Misrak (Fr) Prof. Joel Burdick Sara Ahmed (Jr) Prof. Joseph Shepherd Hunter Zhao (So) Special thanks to Candice Rypisi, Carol Casey (SURF), Professor Ken Pickar, and Ray Gonzales (Survey)

22. Option Mentors • Provide option related guidance • Major requirements • Course selection • Advise undecided frosh • Option socials • Opportunity to meet people in your option, but outside of your house and class • Sign up • Circulating sign up sheet • Email any ARC rep (find us at arc.caltech.edu)

23. Contact Info • Professor Tim Colonius: colonius@caltech.edu • Connie Sun: ys@caltech.edu