Sorry for the slow response, here's my thoughts going into my 4th year here as a CE: On 9/1/06, Charles Riedesel wrote: > Greetings, > > The computer engineering curriculum was changed since you came > into the program. The Curriculum Committee is now considering > additional changes and is very interested in your comments. > > ELEC 121 is now required. Did you take it? Do you think you > would have found it helpful? I didn't take 121. I think that it could have helped with the basic passive circuit components, but I didn't mind skipping to 215. 215 took more work for me than the EE students who had some of the material in 121 but overall the extra 'catchup' was quite doable and time efficient! > > PHYS 213 is dropped and PHYS 222 (the lab for 212) is added. > Did you take either of these courses? How valuable have you > found them? Some have found 222 redundant. Some see potential > in PHYS 213 being modified to incorporate more semiconductor > physics topics and added back in. The Physics department has > expressed a willingness to do it! Any other comments or > recommendations? I took 222 and 213. 213 was only 'okay' but the rating I give is because the professor (Sy-Hwang Liou) did a terriable job. If 213 was redone it could be a good complement to the semiconductor theory. 222 was alright but seemed like basic circuits compared to the circuits labs I'd already had. Maybe consider making a lecture for EE/CE that focuses on the topics of 213 related to semiconductor theory and adds in whatever's necessary from 222. > > We are considering changing CSCE 340 (Numerical Analysis) into > more of a computer simulation and modeling course. Good idea? > I took it with Thomas Shores as an honors class with the JDE kids. It was an advanced financial-based numerical analysis course. I learned things but it didn't have the engineering focus I was hoping for. Based off the textbook a friend is using in the course I'd say some modeling/simulation would be a good move. > We are considering requiring CSCE 361 (Software Engineering) > because most majors do end up in some area of software. What > do you think? What if we enhance 361 to cover systems level > engineering (considered by some to be deficient in our program) > covering both software and hardware? > CSCE361 seems good but I am not familiar with it too much. Would it be possible to incorporate some of the 'design lifecycle' material with another class like CSE310 and make one of the coding projects team based? > We are considering requiring CSCE 462 (Networks). Do you think > all computer engineers should have this? > Networks are good stuff and should be required. I love network and plan to take the course. It's an integral part of hardware and software. > We are considering making CSCE 488 (1st semester of senior > design) into a 2 hour course, more in line with what EE majors > have in ELEC 494. What do you think? This could be good, especially if it accelerated the 'intro' material and allowed students to jumpstart the design process so we could get rolling on the final design earlier putting us in a better standing for entering into contests and creating better final projects. > Adding a testing component to STAT 380 is on the wish list. > Comments? > I took EE305 instead of STAT380. Can't help here... > Should all computer engineers have some grounding in VLSI, > especially in implementation? > Yes, good idea. Can we work this into the CSCE 488 or can EE put it into 361 or something? > If we could collapse ELEC 316, 307, and 361 into fewer hours, would > that take away vital material? > These classes are jam-packed with information. I don't know how you'd condense them without leaving out valuable material. Anthing faster-paced would need to be like a 5-hour course + 3 hour lab = Way too many circuits for one semester to be able to retain information! > If we dropped ELEC 475 (or 476, 478, or 498 digital design) in favor > of an enhanced 370 and maintain design work in senior design, would > that still be adequate design experience? > I think so, yes. I've not taken these becuase I was hoping to take 478 but I can't find it offered. > If we could replace CSCE 155 and 156 with a new data structures > course for engineers that follows CSCE 105 (which is in C - deemed > more valuable for low level computer engineers!), would you miss > the Java of 155 and SQL & PHP of 156? (JDE students would > probably not have this option.) > Yes -- I think I'd miss Java, SQL, and PHP. The broad spectrum the cover (OO, Scripting, & Databases) made a good 'foundation' for me in a lot of my other classes and they came in handy for personal work I've done (website desgn). > Are there any other curriculum items of interest to you? > > Thank you VERY MUCH for taking the time to wade through all these > questions. Keep in mind that there is no way we can make all > these changes - we have to weigh relative benefits and costs. > Finally, would you be interested in being on the Student Advisory > Panel that meets perhaps a couple times per year to provide > student view assessment of our programs? More specifically, > would you be interested in being on a working group of students > and faculty of both Comp Engr and Elec Engr to revise the > curriculum? This will entail some effort! > > Chuck R >