The TAM Response to the College of Engineering Reorganization Proposal

1. The TAM Response to the College of Engineering Reorganization Proposal Nancy R.Sottos Interim Head, Department of Theoretical & Applied Mechanics Donald Biggar Willett Professor of Engineering Co-chair, MENS Research Theme, Beckman Institute

2. Position on the Proposed Merger The College of Engineering and its students are best served by an independent mechanics Department.

3. Some Background on TAM • TAM has a 115 year legacy of teaching and research excellence in mechanics. It is one of the best known departments in the College. The overall impact of the TAM faculty and alumni produced over all these years is extraordinary and undeniable. • Prior to 2005 TAM was the "Powerhouse in Mechanics" in the U.S. and had significant influence on the current mechanics activities across the College of Engineering at Illinois. • TAM has a first rate graduate program and produces the highest number of PhD students per faculty member in the mechanical sciences. This program is a jewel and the envy of many of our peer institutions. • TAM has a vibrant undergraduate program that has been building over the past five years. The program emphasizes fundamentals, research and graduate studies. • TAM provides service teaching for nearly 2500 undergraduates each academic year (513 IU/per faculty). TAM places great value on its service teaching mission and had developed a culture to support this mission.

4. Key Arguments Against Merger 1.Negative impact on mechanics education in both undergraduate programs/service teaching and graduate programs for AE, AgE, CE, EM, GE, IE, MatSE and ME. Increased duplication of mechanics faculty and teaching efforts, no coordinating or service structure across departments. No cost savings will be achieved. 3.Negative impact on mechanics related research, loss of stature in mechanics, long-term loss of fundamental focus.

5. Impact of Merger on Education (1) A merger will have a negative impact on mechanics education at both undergraduate programs/service teaching and graduate programs for AE, AgE, CE, EM, GE, IE, MatSE and ME. • MIE has already stated the Department cannot handle the service teaching load. • Current thinking is to divide up the courses among AE, CE, GE, MatSE and ME . • No plan yet exists for how to handle the teaching; there are no volunteers at this point except for TAM! • Since all the service courses will be taught, this course of action will have to lead to fewer grad courses in mechanics being offered. • No discussion of TA lines or TA training for the service classes.

6. Increased Duplication (2) A merger will lead to increased duplication of mechanics faculty and teaching efforts. Little or no cost savings will be achieved. • If service teaching is divided between departments, these units will have to maintain or hire faculty in mechanics, train graduate students, and provide discussion sections and study halls to cover the classes. • No structure is being proposed to coordinate/facilitate mechanics activity across units. Will MechSE be able to serve other units as TAM does - especially at the graduate level?

7. Impact on Research (3) A merger is already having and will continue to have a negative impact on mechanics related research across the College of Engineering. • Losses in fluid mechanics, computational science, applied math (e.g. # of total J. Fluid Mechanics articles for faculty dropped from 242 to 94) • Loss of focus (critical mass) on fundamental research in mechanics • Shift in balance between fundamental and applied mechanics research • Ability to compete for another ASCI like center

8. The Case for TAM The existence of a TAM Department ensures that: • The degree programs are maintained to current standards of excellence. • There are sufficient resources for mechanics education (e.g. faculty, labs, staff, TAs) with minimal duplication between Departments. • There is a healthy balance in the mechanics-based disciplines between applications and fundamentals across the College. • The current interdisciplinary, cross-departmental approach to mechanics is preserved. • A visible mechanics program at the forefront of research in mechanics.

9. Merger is NOT the only Option The resources needed to rebuild TAM are small and it would not be difficult. In fact, it has been far more costly tearing down TAM and trying to rebuild it in ME. • The TAM Department currently has five open lines (3 promised in writing by Dean Daniel, Kimberly Hill's position, and Head) • The College has acknowledged the critical need to replace the TAM faculty who have left recently: Moser, Hill, Fried, Balachandar, Aref, ….

10. TAM Plan to Rebuild • We would like to be a STABLE faculty of 15– Slightly smaller than our pre-merger 18, but we can run efficiently as a meaner and leaner unit. • Our plan to rebuild is simple: hire two faculty in 2006 and start Head search, hire two additional faculty in 2007, and two faculty in 2008. This requires return of only two more lines to TAM. An independent Department has always been a strong recruiting tool. • We will NOT duplicate hiring efforts in ME. Faculty areas associated with the recent transfers ( e.g. plasticity) will not be rebuilt. • We will continue to grow our undergraduate program. • We will maintain the core of our outstanding graduate curriculum with updates to reflect new hiring areas and areas now more effectively covered by ME.

11. Summary • TAM wants to rebuild and continue its legacy in mechanics research and education. • Rebuilding TAM requires only a small effort and little investment by the COE. • It is unlikely a distinct mechanics program will be sustained in the new MechSE Department. All other mergers have failed in this, e.g. Stanford, Michigan, Ga Tech. • The loss of TAM will hurt the reputation of the College, lead to additional costs, duplications and a loss of emphasis on fundamental engineering science.