Chuck, Here are my survey responses. Keep in mind that I work in firmware development so you'll see my answers have bias towards that even though I tried to keep the industry as a whole in mind when writing my responses. Enjoy my ramblings! Thanks, Adam ELEC 121 is now required. Did you take it? Do you think you would have found it helpful? >If I remember correctly this is the Intro level EE Class that Computer Engineers skipped when I was a student. I think making it required is a good idea and will greatly increase the survival rate of CompE majors once they hit their first EE course. 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? >If I recall correctly, this is where Einstein's Theory of Relativity was covered. I found those topics really interesting and a great way to make you 'think outside the box.' However, probably not the most useful unless your lifetime goal is to invent a time machine or warp drive or something. I think adding semiconductor physics sounds like a great idea. I remember understanding that being a big challenge when it was only covered by the EE Dept, getting another perspective would probably increase the comprehension rate. We are considering changing CSCE 340 (Numerical Analysis) into more of a computer simulation and modeling course. Good idea? >Great Idea! Everywhere you look the industry is going to simulation to help cut costs of very expensive testing hardware. Simulation happens to be what I do at IBM right now. Check out a company called VirtuTech (www.virtutech.com), they have an amazing product. They are founded Academia and my understanding is that licenses are free to University Students. It's no secret that they have a big contract with us: http://www.virtutech.com/news-press/press/2005/2005pr4.html That's the project I'm working on. 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? >Yeah, more Software Engineering can't hurt. It's true that no matter what you do in the technical world these days you end up writing some sort of development software. Even hardware designers have to write programs to do testing (either simulation or to test the real Hardware when it comes from the fab) We are considering requiring CSCE 462 (Networks). Do you think all computer engineers should have this? >I think a basic understanding of networks is good, but don't know that everyone needs a complete course on it. Networks are a booming business so I think a lot of students should be attracted to this but for students that want to focus on firmware or applications this probably isn't necessary....unless everyone want to take 6 years to graduate. 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? >How many hours was it before? 3? 1? I remember feeling like there was a lot of fluff in the existing course. Something should be done to make it more useful. Adding a testing component to STAT 380 is on the wish list. Comments? >What do you mean? I think I need more details on what kind of 'testing' you are thinking of. Should all computer engineers have some grounding in VLSI, especially in implementation? >Yes, I think this is important. If I remember correctly, this would fall under Whittey's Altera boards, which were acquired shortly after I completed that course. I was very jealous to miss out on that hands-on experience. If we could collapse ELEC 316, 307, and 361 into fewer hours, would that take away vital material? >Too many course numbers, what are the titles on these again? 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? >Again too many course numbers. However, don't try trim student's exposure to actually doing design. Designing products is what you do in the real world. If you have a good design, implementation is the easy part so the more education/experience students can get on the better. I experienced way too much of "Here's a program that performs function A, now modify/enhance it to achieve B" when I was a student. 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.) >I missed out on most of the JAVA experience...but don't feel sad about it one bit. Granted, I have very little JAVA experience, but I see it as more of an application level development environment. I think the target for Computer Engineers should be closer to the hardware (Firmware, embedded systems, HW design etc) and C/C++ is much more valuable in that space. Are there any other curriculum items of interest to you? >You've already covered Simulation, which is the one I'd suggest. I'd love the opportunity to discuss this with you further. As you'll learn when we talk on the phone we are debating devoting part of my career fair visit time to meet with you and some of the other faculty on something called the IBM Academic Initiative. 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! >Hmmm...this sounds very interesting but I'd have to discuss it with management first. I would like to hear more about what you have in mind though. Adam Muhle (note - graduated several years ago, now at IBM)