School of engineering science



Download 5,47 Mb.
Page4/11
Date conversion17.08.2017
Size5,47 Mb.
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11

2A.16 LEADERSHIP, TEAMWORK AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT SKILLS:


  • ENSC 100, Engineering, Technology, and Society, introduces students to leadership and teamwork skills. Students are divided into tutorial groups of seven or eight and asked to define a project, which must be approved by the course instructor. The group then develops a solution, initially with guidance from a TA, and at the end of the semester presents this solution in a poster session attended by faculty, staff, and other students. Typical projects have included construction of a perpetual motion machine, design of a kitchen for sightless users, and devising means of protection against Earth-impacting asteroids.




  • ENSC 151, Digital and Computer Design Laboratory, develops teamwork skills with an elementary engineering project.




  • ENSC 305, Project Documentation and Group Dynamics, explores issues of group dynamics, team leadership, project management, and dispute resolution while students are enrolled in the corequisites of ENSC 340/440.




  • ENSC 340/440, Engineering Science Project, are intensive project courses. Students demonstrate professional project management skills while conducting Research and Development of senior level design projects in small groups. Most projects are coordinated with specific industrial organizations or university departments. All projects demonstrate comprehensive mastery of the skills expected of a 4th year engineering student.


2A.17 ENGINEERING SCIENCES - RELATED DISCIPLINES:
Engineering Science subjects normally have their roots in mathematics and basic sciences, but carry knowledge further toward creative applications. Examples of Engineering Science content which imparts an appreciation of important elements of related engineering disciplines are described below.
ENSC 150, Introduction to Computer Design, and ENSC 250, Introduction to Computer Architecture, teaches fundamental concepts of computer engineering. ENSC 220 and 320, Electric Circuits I and II, are fundamental to electrical engineering. The electronic communications sequence, ENSC 327, 427, 428, and 429, impart an appreciation of communications engineering. The controls sequence, ENSC 383 and 483, impart an appreciation of control engineering. Last, but not least, ENSC 372, 472, 374, 474, 376, and 476 impart an appreciation of elements of Biomedical Engineering.
As mentioned in other parts of the report, students are required to select one of the five options in the program: Biomedical Engineering, Computer Engineering, Electronics Engineering, Systems Engineering, and Engineering Physics. The availability of senior engineering elective courses provides the students a mean to take some courses beyond one’s chosen option, thus gaining appreciation of elements in related engineering disciplines. In addition, some courses in the program are common to all five options; for example, ENSC 150, 250, 220, 320, and 383 listed above.
2A.18 FACULTY TEACHING LOADS:
The following faculty teaching load list is from 03-3 to 06-2, and 06-3 to 07-2 (proposed).
Bajic, Ivan

06-1: ENSC 380, Linear Systems, 3 lecture hours per week

06-3: ENSC 424, Multimedia Communications Engineering, 3 Lecture Hours per week

07-1: ENSC 380, Linear Systems, 3 lecture hours per week


Beg, Faisal

04-2: ENSC 460, Digital Image Processing and Analysis, 3 lecture hours per week

04-3: ENSC 801, Linear Systems Theory, 3 lecture hours per week

05-2: ENSC 460/895, Digital Image Processing and Analysis, 3 lecture hours per week

05-3: ENSC 801, Linear Systems Theory, 3 lecture hours per week

06-2: ENSC 460/895, Digital Image Processing and Analysis, 3 lecture hours per week

06-3: ENSC 801, Linear Systems Theory, 3 lecture hours per week

06-3: ENSC 383, Feedback Control Systems, 3 lecture hours per week


Bird, John

03-3: ENSC 802, Stochastic Systems, 3 lecture hours per week

04-1: ENSC 380, Linear Systems, 3 lecture hours per week

04-3: ENSC 802, Stochastic Systems, 3 lecture hours per week

05-1: ENSC 380, Linear Systems, 3 lecture hours per week

05-3: ENSC 802, Stochastic Systems, 3 lecture hours per week

06-1: ENSC 320, Electric Circuits II, 3 lecture hours per week

06-3: ENSC 802, Stochastic Systems, 3 lecture hours per week

07-1: ENSC 320, Electric Circuits II, 3 lecture hours per week
Bolognesi, Colombo (Joint appointment with Physics; Resigned 06-2)

03-3: ENSC 426, High Frequency Electronics, 3 lecture hours per week

03-3: ENSC 856, Compound Semiconductor Device technology, 3 lecture hours per week

04-3: ENSC 426, High Frequency Electronics, 3 lecture hours per week

04-3: ENSC 855, Modern Semiconductor Devices, 3 lecture hours per week

05-3: ENSC 426, High Frequency Electronics, 3 lecture hours per week

05-3: ENSC 850, Semiconductor Device Theory, 3 lecture hours per week
Cavers, Jim (Tier I CRC Chair)

04-1: ENSC 320, Electric Circuits II, 3 lecture hours per week

05-1: ENSC 320, Electric Circuits II, 3 lecture hours per week

05-3: ENSC 805, Techniques of Digital Communications, 3 lecture hours per week

06-3: ENSC 805, Techniques of Digital Communications, 3 lecture hours per week

Chapman, Glenn (Grad Chair, 01-3 to 02-2, Faculty Association President, 06-3 to

07-2)


03-3: ENSC 460/894, Photonics and Laser, 3 lecture hours per week, 2 lab hours per week

04-1: ENSC 495/851, Introduction to Microelectronic Fabrication, 2 lecture hours per week, 4 lab hours per week

04-3: ENSC 220, Electric Circuits I, 3 lecture hours per week

05-1: ENSC 460/894, Photonics and Laser, 3 lecture hours per week, 3 lab hours per week

05-3: ENSC 220, Electric Circuits I, 3 lecture hours per week

06-1: ENSC 460/894, Photonics and Laser, 3 lecture hours per week, 3 lab hours per week


Dill, John (Sick Leave 05-1; Retired 05-3)

04-1: ENSC 304, Human Factors and Usability Engineering, 1 lecture hour per week

04-3: ENSC 489, Computer Aided Design and Manufacturing, 3 lecture hours per week

Gray, Bonnie

04-3: ENSC 894, Biomedical Micro-devices and Systems, 3 lecture hours per week

05-1: ENSC 495/851, Introduction to Microelectronic Fabrication, 2 lecture hours per week, 4 lab hours per week

05-3: ENSC 387, Introduction to Electro-Mechanical Sensors and Actuators, 3 lecture hours per week

06-1: ENSC 495/851, Introduction to Microelectronic Fabrication, 2 lecture hours per week, 4 lab hours per week

06-3: ENSC 387, Introduction to Electro-Mechanical Sensors and Actuators, 3 lecture hours per week

07-1: ENSC 894, Biomedical Micro-devices and Systems, 3 lecture hours per week

07-2: ENSC 225, Microelectronics I, 3 lecture hours per week


Gruver, William (UCC Chair 02-3 to 04-2)

03-3: ENSC 801, Linear Systems Theory, 3 lecture hours per week

04-3: ENSC 387, Introduction to Electro-Mechanical Sensors and Actuators, 3 lecture hours per week

05-2: ENSC 383, Feedback Control Systems, 3 lecture hours per week

05-3: ENSC 383, Feedback Control Systems, 3 lecture hours per week

06-2: ENSC 383, Feedback Control Systems, 3 lecture hours per week


Gupta, Kamal (Associate Director, 2003-2005, 2005-2007)

03-3: ENSC 383, Feedback Control Systems, 3 lecture hours per week

03-3: ENSC 488, Introduction to Robotic, 3 lecture hours per week

04-3: ENSC 383, Feedback Control Systems, 3 lecture hours per week

04-3: ENSC 887, Computational Robotics, 3 lecture hours per week

05-3: ENSC 488, Introduction to Robotic, 3 lecture hours per week

06-3: ENSC 887, Computational Robotics, 3 lecture hours per week

07-2: ENSC 383, Feedback Control Systems, 3 lecture hours per week


Hardy, Steve

04-1: ENSC 427, Communication Networks, 3 lecture hours per week

04-3: ENSC 833, Network Protocols and Performance, 3 lectures per week

05-1: ENSC 427, Communication Networks, 3 lecture hours per week

05-3: ENSC 833, Network Protocols and Performance, 3 lectures per week

06-1: ENSC 427, Communication Networks, 3 lecture hours per week

06-3: ENSC 833, Network Protocols and Performance, 3 lectures per week

07-1: ENSC 427, Communication Networks, 3 lecture hours per week



Hajshirmohammadi, Atousa

04-2: ENSC 861, Source Coding in Digital Communications, 3 lecture hours per week

04-3: ENSC 327, Communication Systems, 3 lecture hours per week

04-3: ENSC 150, Introduction to Computer Design, 3 lecture hours per week

05-1: ENSC 220, Electric Circuits I, 3 lecture hours per week

05-3: ENSC 327, Communication Systems, 3 lecture hours per week

05-3: ENSC 150, Introduction to Computer Design, 3 lecture hours per week

06-1: ENSC 220, Electric Circuits I, 3 lecture hours per week

06-3: ENSC 150, Introduction to Computer Design, 3 lecture hours per week

06-3: ENSC 220, Electric Circuits I, 3 lecture hours per week

07-2: ENSC 220, Electric Circuits I, 3 lecture hours per week

07-2: ENSC 380, Linear Systems, 3 lecture hours per week



Ho, Paul (Sabbatical 07-1 to 07-3; UCC Chair 04-3 to -06-2)

04-1: ENSC 805, Techniques of Digital Communications, 3 lecture hours per week

04-2: ENSC 429, Discrete Time Systems, 3 lecture hour per week

05-1: ENSC 832, Mobile and Personal Communications, 3 lecture hours per week

05-2: ENSC 429, Discrete Time Systems, 3 lecture hour per week

06-1: ENSC 832, Mobile and Personal Communications, 3 lecture hours per week

06-2: ENSC 429, Discrete Time Systems, 3 lecture hour per week

Hobson, Rick (Half-time appointment) (Leave of Absence 03-3)

04-3: ENSC 450, VLSI Systems Design, 3 lecture hours per week

05-3: ENSC 450, VLSI Systems Design, 3 lecture hours per week

06-3: ENSC 450, VLSI Systems Design, 3 lecture hours per week



Jones, John (Associate Dean, 04-3 to 07-2)

03-3: ENSC 100, Engineering Technology and Society, 3 lecture hours per week

04-1: ENSC 330, Engineering Materials, 3 lecture hours per week

04-3: ENSC 100, Engineering Technology and Society, 3 lecture hours per week

05-3: ENSC 100, Engineering Technology and Society, 3 lecture hours per week

06-3: ENSC 100, Engineering Technology and Society, 3 lecture hours per week


Kaminska, Bozena (Tier I CRC Chair)

05-1: ENSC 330, Engineering Materials, 3 lecture hours per week

06-1: ENSC 330, Engineering Materials, 3 lecture hours per week

07-1: ENSC 330, Engineering Materials, 3 lecture hours per week


Karim, Karim

03-3: ENSC 462/895, Electronics for Digital Imaging, 3 lecture hours per week

04-1: ENSC 462/850, Semiconductor Device Theory, 3 lecture hours per week

05-1: ENSC 850, Semiconductor Device Theory, 3 lecture hours per week

05-2: ENSC 325, Microelectronics II, 3 lecture hours per week

05-3: ENSC 325, Microelectronics II, 3 lecture hours per week

06-2: ENSC 462/895, Electronics for Digital Imaging, 3 lecture hours per week

06-3: ENSC 850, Semiconductor Device Theory, 3 lecture hours per week

07-2: ENSC 224, Electronic Devices, 3 lecture hours per week

Kim, Dong In

03-3: ENSC 327, Communication Systems, 3 lecture hours per week

04-1: ENSC 428, Data Communications, 3 lecture hours per week

05-1: ENSC 806, Spread-Spectrum Communications

05-1: ENSC 428, Data Communications, 3 lecture hours per week

06-1: ENSC 428, Data Communications, 3 lecture hours per week

06-2: ENSC 380, Linear Systems, 3 hours per week

07-1: ENSC 806, Spread-Spectrum Communications

07-1: ENSC 428, Data Communications, 3 lecture hours per week
Kuo, James (Leave of Absence Aug 05 to Feb 06; Resigned May 06)

05-1: ENSC 853, Digital Semiconductor Circuits and Devices, 3 lecture hours per week


Lee, Daniel

06-2: ENSC 895, Wireless Networks, 3 lecture hours per week

07-1: ENSC 832, Mobile and Personal Communications, 3 lecture hours per week

07-2: ENSC 429, Discrete Time Systems, 3 lecture hours per week


Liang, Jie

05-1 ENSC 424, Multimedia Communications Engineering, 3 Lecture Hours per week

05-3: ENSC 424, Multimedia Communications Engineering, 3 Lecture Hours per week

06-1: ENSC 861, Source Coding in Digital Communications, 3 lecture hours per week

06-3: ENSC 327, Communication Systems, 3 lecture hours per week

07-1: ENSC 861, Source Coding in Digital Communications, 3 lecture hours per week


Leung, Albert (Sabbatical 05-3 to 06-1; Grad Program Chair 03-3 to 05-2)

03-3: ENSC 325, Microelectronics II, 3 lecture hours per week

04-2: ENSC 425, Electronic System Design, 3 lecture hours per week

04-3: ENSC 325, Microelectronics II, 3 lecture hours per week

05-2: ENSC 425, Electronic System Design, 3 lecture hours per week

06-2: ENSC 425, Electronic System Design, 3 lecture hours per week

07-1: ENSC 495/851, Introduction to Microelectronic Fabrication, 3 lecture hours per week

Leung, Patrick (Sabbatical 04-3 to 05-2)

03-3: ENSC 350, Digital Systems Design, 3 lecture hours per week

05-3: ENSC 351, Real Time and Embedded Systems, 2 lecture hours per week

06-1: ENSC 350, Digital Systems Design, 3 lecture hours per week

06-2: ENSC 350, Digital Systems Design, 3 lecture hours per week

06-3: ENSC 351, Real Time and Embedded Systems, 2 lecture hours per week

07-1: ENSC 350, Digital Systems Design, 3 lecture hours per week

07-2: ENSC 350, Digital Systems Design, 3 lecture hours per week



One, Lakshman (Sabbatical 05-3 to 06-2)

03-3: ENSC 150, Introduction to Computer Design, 3 lecture hours per week

04-1: ENSC 440, Capstone Engineering Science Project, 1 lecture hour per week

04-3: ENSC 250, Introduction to Computer Architecture, 3 lecture hours per week

05-1: ENSC 440, Capstone Engineering Science Project, 1 lecture hour per week

06-3: ENSC 250, Introduction to Computer Architecture, 3 lecture hours per week

07-1: ENSC 440, Capstone Engineering Science Project, 1 lecture hour per week

07-2: ENSC 425, Electronic System Design, 3 lecture hours per week



Parameswaran, Ash

03-3: ENSC 220, Electric Circuits I, 3 lecture hours per week

04-1: ENSC 854, Integrated Microsensors and Actuators, 3 lecture hours per week

05-1: ENSC 225, Micrelectronics I, 3 lecture hours per week

05-2: ENSC 225, Micrelectronics I, 3 lecture hours per week

05-3: ENSC 854, Integrated Microsensors and Actuators, 3 lecture hours per week

06-2: ENSC 225, Micrelectronics I, 3 lecture hours per week

07-1: ENSC 225, Micrelectronics I, 3 lecture hours per week


Payandeh, Shahram

04-1: ENSC 230, Introduction to Mechanical Design, 3 lecture hours per week

04-1: ENSC 890, Advanced Robotics: Mechanics and Control, 3 lecture hours per week

04-3: ENSC 488, Introduction to Robotics, 3 lecture hours per week

05-1: ENSC 230, Introduction to Mechanical Design, 3 lecture hours per week

06-1: ENSC 890, Advanced Robotics: Mechanics and Control, 3 lecture hours per week

06-1: ENSC 230, Introduction to Mechanical Design, 3 lecture hours per week

06-3: ENSC 488, Introduction to Robotics, 3 lecture hours per week

07-1: ENSC 230, Introduction to Mechanical Design, 3 lecture hours per week
Robinovitch, Steve (Tier II CRC Chair, joint with School of Kinesiology)

To be assigned courses once bio-medical program is fully operational


Rawicz, Andrew (Sabbatical 05-1)

03-3: ENSC 340, Engineering Science Project, 1 lecture hour per week

04-1: ENSC 481, Design for Reliability, 3 lecture hours per week

04-3: ENSC 340, Engineering Science Project, 1 lecture hour per week

05-3: ENSC 340, Engineering Science Project, 1 lecture hour per week

06-1: ENSC 440, Capstone Engineering Science Project, 1 lecture hour per week

06-3: ENSC 340, Engineering Science Project, 1 lecture hour per week

07-1: ENSC 481, Design for Reliability, 3 lecture hours per week



Saif, Mehrdad (Director, 02-3 – 07-2)

04-1: ENSC 483, Modern Control Systems, 3 lecture hours per week

05-1: ENSC 483, Modern Control Systems, 3 lecture hours per week

06-1: ENSC 483, Modern Control Systems, 3 lecture hours per week

07-1: ENSC 483, Modern Control Systems, 3 lecture hours per week
Scratchley, Craig

04-1: ENSC 151, Digital and Computer Design Laboratory, 2 lecture hours per week

04-1: ENSC 351, Real Time and Embedded Systems, 3 lecture hours per week

04-2: ENSC 151, Digital and Computer Design Laboratory, 2 lecture hours per week

05-1: ENSC 151, Digital and Computer Design Laboratory, 2 lecture hours per week

05-1: ENSC 351, ENSC 351 Real Time and Embedded Systems, 3 lecture hours per week

05-2: ENSC 151, Digital and Computer Design Laboratory, 2 lecture hours per week

06-1: ENSC 151, Digital and Computer Design Laboratory, 2 lecture hours per week

06-1: ENSC 351, ENSC 351 Real Time and Embedded Systems, 3 lecture hours per week

06-2: ENSC 151, Digital and Computer Design Laboratory, 2 lecture hours per week

07-1: ENSC 151, Digital and Computer Design Laboratory, 2 lecture hours per week

07-1: ENSC 351, ENSC 351 Real Time and Embedded Systems, 3 lecture hours per week

07-2: ENSC 151, Digital and Computer Design Laboratory, 2 lecture hours per week
Sjoerdsma, Mike

05-2: ENSC 204, Graphical Communication for Engineering, 1 lecture hour per week



    1. ENSC 305, Project Documentation and Team Dynamics, 1 lecture hour per week

06-1: ENSC 102, Form and Style in Professional Genres, 2 lecture hours per week

06-1: ENSC 406, Engineering Ethics, Law and Professional Practice, 2 lecture hours per week

06-2: ENSC 204, Graphical Communication for Engineering, 1 lecture hour per week

07-1: ENSC 102, Form and Style in Professional Genres, 2 lecture hours per week

07-1: ENSC 406, Engineering Ethics, Law and Professional Practice, 2 lecture hours per week

07-2: ENSC 204, Graphical Communication for Engineering, 1 lecture hour per week


Stapleton, Shawn (Course Buyout 03-3 to 04-3)

05-1: ENSC 810, Statistical Signal Processing, 3 lecture hours per week

05-2: ENSC 380, Linear Systems, 3 lecture hours per week

06-1: ENSC 810, Statistical Signal Processing, 3 lecture hours per week

06-3: ENSC 426, High Frequency Electronics, 3 lecture hours per week

07-1: ENSC 810, Statistical Signal Processing, 3 lecture hours per week


Stevenson, Susan (On Deputation to Faculty Association, 05-1 to 07-2)

04-1: ENSC 102, Form and Style in Professional Genres, 2 lecture hours per week

04-1: ENSC 406, Engineering Ethics, Law, and Professional Practice, 2 lecture hours per week

04-3: ENSC 101, Writing Process, Persuasion and Presentations, 2 lecture hours per week



Syrzycki, Marek (Sabbatical 04-3 to 05-2)

03-3: ENSC 853, Digital Semiconductor Circuits and Devices, 3 lecture hours per week

04-1: ENSC 852, Analog Integrated Circuits, 3 lecture hours per week

04-2: ENSC 225, Microelectronics I, 3 lecture hours per week

05-3: ENSC 852, Analog Integrated Circuits, 3 lecture hours per week

06-1: ENSC 853, Digital Semiconductor Circuits and Devices, 3 lecture hours per week

06-3: ENSC 852, Analog Integrated Circuits, 3 lecture hours per week

07-1: ENSC 853, Digital Semiconductor Circuits and Devices, 3 lecture hours per week


Trajkovic, Ljiljana (Sabbatical 04-3 to 05-2)

03-3: ENSC 835, High Speed Networks, 3 lecture hours per week

04-1: ENSC 460/895, Anal. Nonlinear Circuits, 3 lecture hrs per week

06-1: ENSC 835, High Speed Networks, 3 lecture hours per week

06-2: ENSC 320, Electric Circuits II, 3 lecture hours per week

07-2: ENSC 320, Electric Circuits II, 3 lecture hours per week


Vaisey, Jacques (course finished by Dr. Tejinder Randhawa as a sessional)

03-3: ENSC 424, Multimedia Communications Engineering, 3 lecture hours per week


Vaughan, Rodney (Industrial Chair)

04-1: ENSC 894, Mobile Communication Channels and MIMO Systems, 3 lecture hours per week

05-1: ENSC 894, Mobile Communication Channels and MIMO Systems, 3 lecture hours per week

05-2: ENSC 320, Electric Circuits II, 3 lecture hours per week

07-1: ENSC 895, Mobile Communication Channels and MIMO Systems, 3 lecture hours per week
Whitmore, Steve (Sabbatical 04-2 to 05-1)

03-3: ENSC 101, Writing Process, Persuasion/Presentation, 2 lecture hours per week

03-3: ENSC 305, Project Documentation and Team Dynamics, 1 lecture hour per week

05-2: ENSC 894, Writing for Publication, 3 lecture hours per week

05-3: ENSC 101, Writing Process, Persuasion and Presentations, 2 lecture hours per week

06-1: ENSC 305, Project Documentation and Team Dynamics, 1 lecture hour per week

06-1: ENSC 820, Engineering Management for Development Projects, 3 lecture hours per week

06-2: ENSC 894, Writing for Publication, 3 lecture hours per week

06-3: ENSC 101, Writing Process, Persuasion and Presentations, 2 lecture hours per week

06-3: ENSC 305, Project Documentation and Team Dynamics, 1 lecture hour per week

07-1: ENSC 305, Project Documentation and Team Dynamics, 1 lecture hour per week 

All technical courses have open labs associated with them. Scheduled labs are indicated where applicable.


In addition to this formally assigned workload, faculty are expected to offer Directed Studies, teach Special Project Laboratory courses, and supervise undergraduate theses. The amount of time spent on this varies from semester to semester, and from one faculty member to another, but is on average equivalent to one additional course per year. The Communication Program Faculty have contact with students through activities such as individual consultations with students about reading and study skills, personal issues and crises, writing remediation, and disciplinary matters; responding to on-line questions and issues in WebCT courses (ENSC 101, 102, 204, 406); assistance with and assessment of papers and presentations for journals, conferences, and contests; and training TA's in teaching effectively and managing tutorials.
2A.19 TEACHING ASSISTANTS:
The duties of teaching assistants are the grading of homework assignments, grading of laboratory reports, and assistance and demonstration of laboratory procedures and experiments. Teaching assistants are not normally employed to give lectures or grade examinations.
Teaching assistants are normally required to set up office hours for in-person questions and help. Occasionally, consultation will be provided via email. They are supervised by the faculty member in charge of the course. Evaluation of their performance relative to their duties is performed by the students as part of the formal course evaluation procedure.
2A.20 AVERAGE COMPLETION TIME / ATTRITION RATES:
We investigated the completion time of B.A.Sc. graduands from the academic year 1995-96 to 2004-05 based on the data provided by SFU. The provided tables list the average number of registered semesters to graduation (from a student’s first registered semester at SFU to the last registered semester before degree completion – Table 3), and the average number of elapsed semesters to graduation (Table 4). The data in Table 4 are provided for different types of student admission: high school students, college transfer students, university transfer students, degree holder students, and others. In the following analysis, we focused only on the high school admission cohort as the most representative to evaluate the average completion time. The transfer students and other categories tend to be registered for smaller number of semesters, but, because they have transferred into the B.A.Sc. Engineering program from elsewhere, their data cannot be used as a measure of the program completion time. In addition, the number of transfer students and others is only a small fraction of the entire ENSC undergraduate student population (less than 15% within ten years), so focusing only on students admitted from high schools is justified.


Table 3. BASC Graduands from a High School by

average number of REGISTERED semesters to graduation

(from student's first registered semester at SFU to last registered semester before degree completion)




Category

1993/94

1994/95

1995/96

1996/97

1997/98

1998/99

1999/00

2000/01

Avg # Registered Semesters to Graduation

15.4

15.2

15.3

15.6

15.7

15.0

14.7

14.7

# BASC Graduands

23

31

19

38

30

42

31

52
















Ten-Year Summary

2001/02

2002/03

2003/04

2004/05

10-Year Average

# BASC Graduands

15.6

15.6

15.9

15.9

15.4

 

32

47

56

59

 

406




Table 4. Average number of ELAPSED semesters to graduation

(from student's first registered semester at SFU to degree completion form)

Basis of Admission

1995/96

1996/97

1997/98

1998/99

1999/00

2000/01

2001/02

High School

17.3

17.6

18.2

17.5

15.4

16.1

17.1

College Transfer

15.0




14.8

17.0

13.0

17.0

15.0

University Tfr

17.0

14.0




12.0

26.7

11.0

16.0

Degree Holder




17.0







13.0

21.0

9.0

Other

15.0

15.0

22.0

17.3

15.0

10.0




Average Elapsed Semesters

16.9

17.4

18.0

17.2

16.0

15.9

16.8

# BASC Graduands

24

41

36

49

40

57

36




2002/03

2003/04

2004/05

10-Year Average

# BASC Graduands







17.5

18.2

17.7

17.3

406







14.5

15.5

12.3

14.5

20







12.0

10.5

13.5

15.3

18










12.0




14.4

5







12.0

14.0

27.5

18.4

19







17.1

17.7

17.8

17.1










Figure 1: Average number of semesters to B.A.Sc. completion
Figure 1 shows how the completion times in our undergraduate population have evolved over the past 12 years. The average number of registered semesters to graduation has been fluctuating between 14.5 and 16 semesters during the reporting period. The average number of elapsed semesters to graduation varies between 15.5 and 18.5 semesters. The difference between the number of elapsed semesters and the number of registered semesters roughly corresponds to the number of semesters students spend on internship.
Although Engineering Science has a similar number of lecture hours as other Canadian engineering schools, our students still take somewhat longer to graduate. As a reference point, the average number of semesters to graduation at other Engineering Schools with a co-op program tends to be around 14 (Based on numbers from University of Victoria and Waterloo), often with little variation among the students. We believe that the major reason for this difference lies in the flexibility of our program, which allows the students to make choices. The following points make this position clear.
Our program of study is based on credits rather than cohorts, which means that students are free to take the courses that they need when they want to. Although a recommended course sequence is provided, no mechanism prevents students from deviating from the plan. If students do deviate, it can easily extend their program by 3 semesters because many courses are offered only once per year.
Another contributing factor to an extended completion time is the undergraduate thesis (ENSC 498 and 499). While it provides the students with exposure to what research is like and prepares them for graduate studies later on, it normally takes two semesters to complete the 12 credits of thesis requirements. With the introduction of the non-thesis (General Degree) option in 2002, we expect that the average completion time will eventually decrease as more and more students take up this option.
Our co-op program is flexible in the fact that students can obtain co-op terms when they wish, can do extra co-op terms, and can sign up for 8-month assignments. These experiences are often very beneficial for the student, but also tends to de-synchronize them from the study plan, again extending graduation times.
Finally, unlike most Canadian engineering schools, our students take many “regular” courses from other departments such as Mathematics, Physics and Computer Science. These courses are taken together with students majoring in these disciplines who often have much lighter loads than is typical in Engineering Science. In order to compete more effectively, some of our students lighten their loads.
Completion times are likely to be improved by the current growth in our program because we will be able to offer key courses multiple times per year. As stated, the introduction of the non-thesis option in 2002 will also help to reduce the completion time.
Attrition is an issue in any challenging academic program and the School is always trying to address it in more effective ways. In order to obtain a stable measure of attrition, we group our students into cohorts according to those that are entering 1st year together in a given calendar year. We then track these students each year to see which of them remain Engineering Science majors. Students transferring into the upper years of our program are not part of any of these cohorts and thus the “graduated’ numbers are lower than the number of students actually graduating. Table 5 shows the number of students starting in each calendar year and the corresponding number of students graduated in their cohort.
In order to show trends in the above data, we plot the percentage of students graduated from each calendar year cohort in Figure 2. The figure shows that after some initial period (years 1990 to 1993) the percentage of graduated student from each cohort become stable around a healthy 70%. This number corresponds to an attrition rate around the 30% level (years 1995 to 1998). The data in the last years are partially incomplete – some students who started in 2000 are still registered and are expected to graduate.
Table 5: Attrition in the program by cohort – presented as the number of students

starting in each year and the number of students graduated.


Cohort

Starting number

Graduated

1990

58

24

1991

68

29

1992

50

26

1993

56

27

1994

55

34

1995

70

50

1996

78

54

1997

72

49

1998

75

51

1999

88

48

2000

83

45*

2001

93

17*

2002

144

4*

2003

162




2004

165




2005

180







Figure 2: Attrition by cohort presented as a percentage of each year

cohort that went into graduation.
2A.21 TRANSCRIPT ANALYSIS:
The following is a list of student identification numbers for the most recent graduating class by option, as of August 31, 2006:


Computer Engineering

200046301

200055868

200039792

200056205

200035536

200046267

963011592

200042560

200087239

200056985

200062415

200073549

200056338

200079282

200060636

200052959

200055047

200021153

200074057


Electrical Engineering

200062265

200040639

200030510

200041590

200062502

200041479

200088730

200035040

200054187

200061870

200034625

200069156

200034805

200034618

200048597

200080227

200032699

200029272

200059867

200075752

200057015

200053545

200077539

200076876

200054550

200057551

200032684

200074125

200070105



Electrical Engineering

& Systems

200061286



Electrical Engineering

& Biomedical Stream

200034632



Engineering Physics

200041393



Systems

200054235

200060296

200058025

200074053

200077678

200050789

200077696

200032680

200061488

200055239

200060928

200056415

200058088

200077372

200034783

200046356

Systems & Biomedical

Stream

200041589

200024634


Student identification numbers for the current senior class in the program by option (as of August 31, 2006) is provided below: TO BE UPDATED




200099940

200104460

200085994

200093741

200104078

200095487

200097356

200074063

200092840

200097322

200097619

200099351

200106657

200100481

200100295

200095692

200097704

200105184

200104032

200100239

200104709

200097879

200109371

200105620

200105421

200083550

200040018

200100346

200080088

200096882

200097811

200094682

200092044

200099441

200096523

200100941

200035560

200104935

200103360

200101268

200097552

200093229

200094315

200105154

200097044

200094371

200105899

200104886

200098055

200105587

200096482

200013632

200093863

200103194

200095573

200106191

200094013

200097820

200102629

200111786

200097772

200105000

200097201

200102510

200093862

200093620

200092767

200094029

200096357

200097585

200068400

200094523

200094532

200097624

200097857

200082939

200098448

200106374

200103923

200064174

200082185

200065575

200075217

200077764

200082427

200073687

200077862

200079755

200072192

200075697

200078071

200080001

200115863

200075933

200073076

200079328

200081129

200085079

200074540

200080183

200074533

200078608

200082335

200075067

200074340

200083453

200072775

200075905

200076179

200076483

200087817

200085045

200080484

200076077

200038938

200073310

200080194

200082394

200070417

200082824

200080182

200073213

200075360

200058168

200075192

200072469

200078143

200082948

200075412

200075220

200078204

200077017

200077674

200072656

200069790

200073976

200056007

200052330

200053122

200050222



Grades

Table 6 -Grade Scale

Scale

The student is awarded a final grade at the end of the semester for each credit course. Each grade will appear on the student’s record as a letter grade and numerical equivalent as follows.



Letter Grade

Definition

Numeric equivalency

A+

A

A-



Excellent performance

4.33

4.00


3.67

B+

B

B-



Good performance

3.33

3.00


2.67

C+

C


Satisfactory performance

2.33

2.00


C-

D


Marginal performance

1.67

1.00


F

Unsatisfactory performance

(fail)


0.00

P

Satisfactory performance or better (pass, ungraded)

no equivalent

CC

Course Challenge

no equivalent

AE

Aegrotat standing,

compassionate pass



no equivalent

DE

Deferred grade

no equivalent

FX

Formal exchange

no equivalent

GN

Grade not reported

no equivalent

N

Did not write final exam or otherwise complete course

0.00

W

Withdrawn

no equivalent

AU

Audit

no equivalent

CR

Credit without grade

no equivalent

WD

Withdrawal

no equivalent

WE

Withdrawal under

extenuating circumstances



no equivalent

IP

In progress

no equivalent

Note: Credit is granted for A+, A, A-, B+, B, B-, C+, C, C-, P, D. CC, AE, CR. No credit is granted for F, N, DE, W, AU, WD, WE, FX, IP.


Scale Changes
In the first two semesters (65-3, 66-1), A- and C+ grades were awarded; these grades were discontinued with the third (66-2) semester, as was the T (standing granted) grade. A- and C+ were re-established with the 67-3 semester, discontinued in 79-2 semester and re-established in 79-3.
Prior to fall semester 1979, numerical equivalents assigned to grades differed from those given above as follows: A+ and A- = 4.00; B+ and B- = 3.00; C+ and C- = 2.00.
Explanation of Grades/Notations
AE Grades

Aegrotat standing (AE) in an incomplete course may be awarded on medical or compassionate grounds by the registrar acting on the recommendation of the instructor or department chair concerned when written evidence is submitted to substantiate a request for such standing, and when the course requirements for credit have been substantially fulfilled. This evidence normally must be received by the registrar or department within 96 hours of a scheduled final examination or within 96 hours of the last day of semester lectures for which such standing is requested. Courses for which aegrotat standing is awarded are not included in the GPA calculation.


AU Notation

Audit will be recorded as AU on a student transcript if the student fulfils the requirements agreed to by the student and the department at the time of registration. Minimally, these requirements should comprise regular attendance at class meetings, completion of readings and participation in class activities. Audited courses will not count towards degree requirements.


CC Grades

A student who has been registered for a course challenge is subject to an assessment equivalent to the final examination for the course plus an interview which may include an oral and/or practical examination, all to be arranged and approved by the chair of the department concerned. Departments are free to hold course challenge examinations at any time during the semester after the formal period of registration for course challenge. A performance equivalent to a grade of C or higher in the course is required for a successful course challenge.


The department concerned must submit a report to the registrar on or before the last day for submission of regular grades in the course for that semester indicating the final disposition for the course challenge in the semester. There is no provision for extension or deferral. Results will be recorded by departments as successful, unsuccessful or unattempted. Successful results will appear on transcripts of academic record and statements of standing with the entry CC in the grade column and with credit shown. At the end of semester, unsuccessful or unattempted results will not appear on transcripts of academic record or statements of standing but will be held by the Office of the registrar in internal records.
The grade of CC has no numerical equivalent and is not included in the calculation of grade point average. The grade of CC may not be applied in any way toward application for scholarships, bursaries or loans.
CR Grades

The grade of CR has no numerical equivalent and is not included in the GPA calculation. The CR grade may be assigned in certain special cases.


DE Grades

The DE notation will be given when a physician’s certificate or other document substantiating a request for deferment on medical or compassionate grounds

is received by the registrar or the chair of the department concerned within four days of the date from which the final examination was to have been written, or when the course instructor wishes to defer submitting a final mark pending completion of further work by the student. The DE notation must be submitted by the instructor with a recommended length of deferral and approved by the chair. All unchanged DE notations will be converted automatically to F after the fifth day of classes of the semester immediately following the one in which the notation was awarded. In exceptional cases, an extension may be granted by the department chair upon petition by the student.
FX Grades

The grade of FX has no numerical equivalent and is not included in the GPA calculation. FX is assigned for formal exchange courses only.


GN Notation

The notation GN (grade not reported) may be used if circumstances beyond the University’s control make it impossible for course grades to be assigned. The notation has no numerical equivalent and does not

affect either the semester grade point average (GPA) or cumulative grade point averages (CGPA). The dean of the faculty responsible for the course shall advise the registrar, in writing, that the notation GN is approved for a course or for a particular group of students in a course.
IP Grades

The grade of IP has no numerical equivalent and is not included in the GPA calculation. IP is assigned in certain Education courses.


N Grades

The letter grade N is given when a student has registered for a course, but did not write the final examination or otherwise failed to complete the course work, and did not withdraw before the deadline date. An N is considered an F for purposes of scholastic standing.


A student receiving grade N must re-register for the course and participate in the course again, as required by the instructor, in order to achieve a different evaluation for the course.
P and W Grades

The grades of P and W have no numerical equivalent and do not affect either the SGPA or CGPA. The designation W will be given when a student withdraws (or is withdrawn) after the course drop period for a course graded on a pass (P) or withdrawn (W) basis.


WD and WE Notations

The notations WD and WE are not grades and do not affect either the GPA or CGPA. The notation WD identifies a course freely dropped by the student. The notation WE identifies a course dropped by the student under extenuating circumstances normally during week 6 through to the end of week 12 of a semester. Extenuating circumstances are defined as unusual circumstances beyond the student’s control which make it impossible for the student to complete the course. Different time periods are in effect for intersession and summer session. (For more complete details refer to “Course Drop Period” on page 46.) For semester specific dates, refer to the Course Timetable and Exam Schedule (http://students.sfu.ca).


Credit for the Semester
All credit earned will be granted, regardless of the grade point average (GPA) for the semester. Credit may be granted for a specific course/topic once only. Where a student repeats a course, the course(s) with the lower grade will be recorded on official records as a duplicate course. If the same grade is earned for a repeated course, the course completed most recently is recorded on the official records as the duplicate. Repeated courses for which no grades have yet been assigned (i.e., courses in progress) will be recorded as duplicates until a final grade is awarded which is higher than the grade previously earned. Duplicate courses remain on the official record, and are included in the calculation of the semester GPA. The cumulative GPA computed for semesters completed prior to fall semester 1979 includes duplicate courses. Duplicate courses are not included in the GPA when it is computed for graduation purposes. See “Duplicate Transfer Credit” on page 45.
Statement of Grades
At the end of each semester, grades for that semester are made available to registered students in good financial standing on the registration system. Notifications of grades and academic standing will be mailed to students not in good academic standing. Errors in grades will be corrected as soon as possible.
Information concerning final grades is not released to unauthorized persons without written consent of the student.
Grade Point Averages
The semester grade point average (GPA) is a method of expressing the student’s performance for the semester as a numerical average. Each letter grade (except grades/notations P, W, CC, AU, AE, CR, FX, DE, WD, WE and IP) is assigned a numerical equivalent, which is then multiplied by the credit hour value assigned to the course to produce the grade point. Grades without a numerical equivalent are not included in the calculation of the grade point average.
Semester grade point average is computed by dividing the total number of grade points earned by the total number of credit hours taken in the semester (excepting those credit hours assigned to course with a final grade/notation of P, W, CC, AU, AE, CR, FX, DE, WD, WE or IP).
Table 7: Letter Grade Numerical





Letter Grade

Numeric Value

Semester Hours

Grade Point

Course 1

A

4.00

3

12.00

Course 2

A+

4.33

3

12.99

Course 3

B-

2.67

3

8.01

Course 4

C

2.00

3

6.00

Course 5

F

0.00

4

0.00

Total

16

39.00

semester grade point average: 39/16 = 2.44

The cumulative grade point average (CGPA) expresses performance as a numerical average for all semesters completed and is closed in the semester in which a degree or diploma is awarded by senate. A new CGPA begins when a student returns for further studies following the awarding of a degree or diploma.


The CGPA is calculated by dividing the total number of grade points earned to date by the total number of credit hours undertaken to date, with the exception of those courses assigned a final grade/notation of P, W, CC, AU, AE, CR, FX, DE, WD, WE, or IP. The CGPA calculated for semesters completed prior to the fall semester 1979 includes duplicate courses.
Repeat courses repeated in fall 1979 or thereafter and which have been assigned a final grade equal to or lower than the grade previously assigned are excluded from the CGPA calculation for the semester in which the course was repeated as well as any subsequent semester completed. If, however, a higher grade is achieved in the course when repeated, the repeat course(s) with the lower grade(s) will be excluded from the CGPA for the most recent semester and any subsequent semesters completed. However, the lower grade is reflected in the CGPA calculated for each semester up to the semester in which the higher grade was achieved. The upper division grade point average is calculated by dividing the total number of grade points earned in upper division courses by the total number of credit hours assigned for those courses, counting only the higher grade in courses that have been duplicated.
2A.22 SELF-APPRAISAL – THE ENGINEERING UNIT:
PROGRAM NAME: Engineering Science
Strengths
Our first strength is in the people who make up the School: the faculty, staff and students. We pride ourselves on offering programs with a great deal of personal contact between experts and learners (students can also be experts!). Although the level of contact has been dropping as our school grows, we still see this contact as one of our distinctive features and are working hard to maintain it.
The strengths of our program are summarized by the following characteristics:


  • One of our greatest assets is our faculty and the diversity in their range of expertise. The success of our School in achieving excellence in research and teaching rests on their continued commitment to excellence. A benefit derived from the enrolment growth of the School in the past four years has been the ability of our School to increase the number of the faculty and widening the program offering by introducing the Biomedical Engineering (BME) and the planned Mechatronic Systems Engineering (MSE). In the last four years, alone 13 new faculty members have joined the School and seven more faculty members have been hired and will be joining the School in the next few months. Additional hiring will be made in the next few years, particularly for the MSE program to be offered at SFU Surrey. The new faculty hires all have a well balanced commitment to teaching, research, and service to the University and the School.




  • A principal strength of the Engineering Science program continues to be the quality and diversity of its undergraduate students. Our students are bright, creative, and enthusiastic and, in general, are noted within the Faculty and the University for their extra curricular activities. We ensure that these students are motivated and challenged by building a culture of high expectation and by ensuring that they have many opportunities for contact with our faculty members. Students are required to maintain a minimum 2.4 grade point average to remain in the major and a B average to stay in the honors program. Having such a select and highly motivated group allows the program to incorporate considerable flexibility in course structure and to develop working links at the student level with prestigious research and industrial organizations.




  • Courses at all levels are taught predominantly by faculty members, except, deliberately, the engineering management and engineering finance course. Student course evaluations for Engineering Science faculty members are far higher than the university average. The faculty maintain strong research and consulting programs, and they bring their experiences to the classroom. Support staff members are both highly qualified and highly motivated.




  • The School enjoys strong support from senior University administrators and cognate schools or departments. Support in the industrial community is even stronger because of the quality of the graduates and the accessibility of the faculty.




  • The School has an industrially relevant orientation: the mandatory industrial internships routinely place students in advanced projects; most faculty members have industrial experience; almost all faculty members are engaged in collaborative research and consulting activities; many adjunct professors hold senior technical or managerial positions in industry; a key course in engineering management and finance is taught by instructors who have strong industry experience; and weekly seminars with mandatory attendance feature speakers on entrepreneurship and industrial projects, among others.




  • Specific curriculum features are part of the strengths:

  • A series of communication skills courses develop the students’ abilities in oral and written presentations, persuasive writing, critical thinking, and research techniques (databases, patents, etc), as well as social, ethical and professional issues.

  • The industrial internships have developed a strong international dimension, with students placed in Japan, Hong Kong, Korea, the UK, France and Germany, as well as the US. The awareness of other business and social cultures is essential preparation for a global economy.

  • We encourage an entrepreneurial spirit in our students via exposure to successful entrepreneurs, by instruction in engineering management, and by support for their enthusiasm and initiatives. Support for student projects related to biomedical engineering has been provided by the Wighton Fund administered by the Wighton Professor in the School. The Aerial Robotics and the SFBOT groups, student run organizations that compete internationally with their robotic devices, have industry support.

  • The program emphasizes experimental work: almost all courses have an associated hands-on lab operating on an open lab system. Students are expected to be able to design and build, as well as analyze.

  • Students integrate course work with a project of significant scope in ENSC 440, in Special Projects courses, and in the undergraduate thesis (in the case of students in the Honors Program). Many of the theses are performed in industry; in the remainder, the student is integrated into a faculty member’s research team.

  • We foster a culture of cooperation and teamwork among our students through our open lab environment and the creation of collaborative spaces in the lab. The result is a high-level of peer-peer mentorship among our students that runs across years and sometimes into the graduate school.

  • Because we do not follow a cohort model, our program is significantly more flexible than many Engineering programs, with our students able to adjust the timing of many of their courses to match their own schedules and interests.


Weaknesses/concerns


  • The School of Engineering Science is not located in an engineering faculty and must compete for faculty-level resources with five diverse sister schools. Indeed, the current Dean, Dr. Brian Lewis, has a background in the Humanities and an appointment in the School of Communications. Difficulties in the distribution of resources, articulating a clear vision for the faculty, marketing the program to potential students, faculty recruits, granting agencies, and in general, the outside world, are examples of the negative impacts of the faculty structure.




  • In the past, Engineering Science has suffered from space problems; however, because of our planned growth, the School’s space allotment was to increase by 1804 m2. In fact, the School has received slightly over that amount of space. At present, the School’s total space at the Burnaby Campus is about 4,350 m2. A major portion of the new space was used to expand the undergraduate laboratories to accommodate the increased number of students or to address the space shortages of the past. The remainder of the new space was used to set up research and office space for the new faculty hires and their graduate students. As such, there has not been any real increase to research space of the individual faculty, some of whom, due to the nature of their research, are in a dire need for additional research space. Overall, space wise, we remain below the engineering average in Canada.




  • Many courses in the basic curriculum are offered by other departments or schools, so certain key curriculum elements may be out of the School’s direct control.




  • Despite some reforms to the curriculum and the introduction of honors and majors programs, the attrition rate, and the average completion time for our program remain high.




  • In the last three years, thanks to one time funds that were allocated to our School by the Vice President, Academic and the Dean’s Office, the School spent well over $1.0M to upgrade and expand the engineering labs. Virtually every lab in the School has gone through expansion and equipment upgrade. Nevertheless, the School still does not have a more stable and recurring capital equipment funding mechanism for equipment renewal. Having a steady and predictable capital equipment funding is desirable so that we can better plan lab renewal and equipment upgrade.




  • In the past, with our small enrolment targets, the School regularly met its student intake quota without difficulty and a great deal of recruiting effort. This situation has changed in the past couple of years due to a larger quota, and a number of other factors such as increased competition for top students, reduction in the number of high school applicants, new changes to SFU admission standards and the introduction of SIMS, historical and cyclic rise and fall in demand for certain engineering fields, IT sector crash, perceived negative effects of globalization and outsourcing. As a result, the School has not been able to meet its enrolment targets in the last couple of years despite the increased efforts in recruiting.




  • The School of Engineering Science has had an ongoing concern over the engineering faculty salaries over the last few years. Currently, somewhat competitive salaries are being offered to new faculty hires in Engineering Scinece and this is good since we need to be highly competitive with other Canadian universities, and in particular with our sister institution UBC, to be able to recruit outstanding candidates to SFU. However, unlike many other universities (including UBC), the administration has not been very proactive in revisiting and permanently revising the salary structure so that the existing faculty members in the School also receive a fair and competitive salary. The result of this structure has been salary compression, inversion, anomalies, and basically, what we feel is, an unfair salary structure. In 2002, after many universities had already addressed the issue in a permanent way, SFU administration proposed the so called “Retention Fund” to address the issue. At the time, the Administartion argued that it needed time to come up with a permanent solution, and that the Retention Fund model was a temporary (five year) measure. Although far from ideal, many of the existing faculty members in engineering with anamoulous salary levels applied and received some level of retention fund on top of their normal salary levels for a five year period. However, since that time, and in spite of occasional reminders by the School, as well as an external review recommendation that “[a] long-term solution to the Faculty Retention Fund should be articulated as soon as possible with due consultations with the units affected”, External Review: Simon Fraser University, School of Engineering Science by S. Chaudhuri, O. Akhrif, and A. N. Michel (2003), nothing has been implemented to address this problem. As mentioned, most of the retention funds were allocated for a term of five years and the majority of the recipients were existing senior (associate and full professor) faculty members. These awards will all expire in April 2007, and the administration seems to be interested in continuing with this same model. However, we believe that there are serious and fundamental problems with this approach:




  1. This solution was meant to be temporary until the University could find a “satisfactory solution” for all involved.

  2. The current salary structure has created inequities and unfairness into the system. Long term, productive faculty members currently have regular salary levels below some of the newly hired ones. The University’s solution seems to be that they will need to jump through hoops every five years in the hope of receiving additional retention funds to make their salaries on par with their colleagues in the School, and somewhat competitive with colleagues at other institutions.

  3. A great deal of uncertainty (e.g. availability and the level of the fund available for engineering faculty, etc.) is associated with the retention fund model, and this does not give any faculty member a sense of comfort or stability. Under the current model, the rules of the game can change every five years.

  4. We feel that there is a difference between a fair and equitable salary level for engineering faculty with many years of service to the University, and an occasional salary adjustment to “faculty stars” that are on the verge of being recruited by other institutions or industry. The current retention fund model, which any member of the university from any department can apply to, is more suitable for the latter situation than the former. A recent informal study of full professor salaries in electrical engineering at Ontario universities revealed that if we were not to factor in the current retention stipend to Engineering faculty, the salary levels for professors in Engineering Science at SFU are on average about $20,000 below the Ontario universities (University of Toronto salaries were not included in this figure). In addition, in an informal discussion with the Chair of Electrical Engineering at UBC, it was confirmed that UBC Professor salaries, on average, are also higher by a similar amount. As an example, the average salary of a full professor at Queens is $18,671 greater than that of a SFU professor, whereas at Waterloo, the figure is $24,726. Indeed, the problem is exacerbated with Vancouver's cost of living being higher than either Kingston or Waterloo, and arguably the highest in Canada.

  5. Because the core of the problem, at least in engineering, is the inadequate salary levels, a large number of faculty will have to be considered every 3-5 years under the Retention Fund Model. The process used to arrive at a decision is cumbersome and has serious problems. The decision process is that the School’s Tenure and Promotion Committee (TPC) needs to review all the applications and make recommendations on each case to the Dean. The Dean in turn will make his/her recommendations to the Vice President Academic (VPA). Finally, the VPA shall make the ultimate decision, and that decision is final; there is no appeal process at any stage. Procedurally, this process is a huge amount of work for the TPC, and our experience has shown that indeed it can lead to a very inefficient, divisive, and controversial decision process--every 3-5 years. Example problems are: a) TPC members being in a conflict of interest, b) philosophical discussion and debate, ad nauseam, over the decision criteria that should be used, c) dis-satisfaction and rift amongst the faculty members, d) many person hours of valuable time that can be devoted to other academic tasks, etc. And, after all of that, in the last round, the VPA still made significant (almost in all cases) downward adjustments to the recommendations.

In conclusion, we firmly believe that just as the University has to be competitive to recruit outstanding candidates , it also needs to be competitive in order to retain and get the most out of the existing outstanding faculty. To ignore the fact that the existing, and in most cases, dedicated long term members of our community deserve to also receive a fair and competitive salary, could lead to loss of faculty, or low morale and lack of productivity amongst this group of faculty members. In fact, the School has lost a couple of its productive faculty members in the last few years partially due to this reason. The School of Engineering Science firmly believes that the benefits of settling this issue once and for all, by far outweighs any perceived advantages by going the current Retention Fund route.


The Engineering Science program was last visited by a CEAB team in 2003, and a decision was taken at the June 2004 meeting of the CEAB to accredit the program till 2007. The following specific concerns, weaknesses, and deficiencies were noted by the CEAB at the 2004 meeting:
Concerns

“The number of accreditation units of Engineering Science + Engineering Design narrowly exceeds the CEAB minimum requirement of 900 accreditation units in one of the options (CEAB criterion 2.2.3).”

“The level of teaching assistant funding, including the recent increase of $150,000/year, is inadequate to support further increase in enrolment (CEAB criterion 2.3.1).”
Weakness

“Inadequate space and facilities are negatively affecting the quality of the educational experience (CEAB criterion 2.3.1). In the absence of additional space, further enrolment expansion will exacerbate this situation. This is a repeat finding of the previous accreditation decision letter. It is crucial that the construction of the new building, with appropriate allocation of space and acquisition and renewal of laboratory equipment to support the engineering program, proceed as planned.”


Deficiencies

“Dedication to the engineering profession and to the aims of engineering education is not sufficiently demonstrated through engineering faculty becoming licensed as professional engineers in Canada (CEAB criterion 2.3.4). This is a repeat finding of the previous two accreditation decision letters.”


“The portion of the Engineering Science and Engineering Design curriculum content being taught by licensed engineers is not sufficient (CEAB criterion 2.3.5). This is a repeat finding of the previous two accreditation decision letters.”
The School has taken the above very seriously, and has been working hard to address the above issues raised by the CEAB.
With regards to the first concern, it was felt that the general degree program in Computer and Electronics engineering options did not exceed the ES + ED AU requirements by a “comfortable” margin. To address this problem and at the same time ensure that the students in these options are fully versed in the semiconductor device physics, a new engineering course ENSC 224--Electronics Devices was introduced. This course will be a required for the 2005-3 (and subsequent) intake majoring in the Electronics option and the Computer option. The course replaces a technical elective in the Electronics option and a science elective in the Computer option. As a result of this change, the AUs in ES+ED in both options now comfortably meets and exceeds the CEAB requirements.
Regarding the second concern, the School has been spending more money on TAs in recent years. In fact, aside from the increases that were made to the TA budget (current total TA budget of $144,414) by the administration, the School has directed its entire share of the income from the Graduate ($56,403) and Undergraduate ($38,320) Premium Fees into the TA budget. Additionally, last year the School applied to the University for two of our courses (ENSC 100/101) to receive the University’s W (writing course) designation, and as a result received $16,200 funding for TAs to be used for those courses. Nevertheless, the School has spent a total of $344,234 on TAs in 05/06, and had to inject an additional $88,897 into the TA budget. This money came from other available funds such as those coming into the School from sabbatical leaves or unspent money from open faculty positions, etc. Overall, the School has been spending what is necessary to provide adequate TA support for its courses. We have made a case and hope however, that the higher level administration or the Dean would make a further increase of about $100K per year to the School’s TA budget in the future.
We believe that the space issue that was raised as a weakness, for the most part, is addressed. Early on this year, the School finally moved into its newly renovated space in the Applied Science Building (ASB). Over 1800 m2 of new space was made available to the School. A major portion of the new space was used to expand the undergraduate laboratories to accommodate the increased number of students or to address the space shortages of the past. It should be noted that the School has historically used its lab space very efficiently through such measures as the open lab policy and by flexible use of space from term to term. As such, we believe that the undergraduate laboratory space, at least for now, is quite adequate for our purposes. The more pressing need at this time is for research and graduate student office space, although some additional teaching space for the new BME labs would also be desirable, even though we have set some space aside for this purpose already.
The deficiencies that were raised by the CEAB in our last visit have been taken very seriously by the School, and as a result, the School has taken a very proactive approach to remedy the problems which, in fact, are closely related. Some of our efforts and progress in dealing with these issues were already communicated to CEAB in two written reports that were submitted to the Board in early 2005 and 2006.
The School’s new policy is that the new faculty candidates must be, or must be eligible to become a registered professional engineer in BC. We now state this condition in our faculty position advertisments. Further, the School’s Tenure and Promotion Policy makes reference to the point that by tenure or promotion time, candidates should be a PEng or demonstrate that they have made a serious effort in becoming one. Some of the existing non-PEng faculty members who are eligible for registration are continuously being encouraged to register. These efforts are paying off and we have made significant improvements in this area. A number of our faculty have obtained their PEng status since the last CEAB visit: 1) Professor Paul Ho, 2) Professor Jie Liang, 3) Professor Ash Parameswaran, 4) Professor Dong In Kim, 5) Professor Karim Karim, 6) Professor Faisal Beg, and 7) Professor Bonnie Gray. In addition, a large number of faculty members are currently in the process of becoming a PEng, and we expect them to be registered in a matter of few months. These members are 1) Professor Andrew Rawicz, 2) Dr. Atousa Hajshirmohammadi, 3) Dr. Craig Scratchley, 4) Professor Ivan Bajic, 5) Professor Daniel Lee, and even 6) Dr. Marinko Sarunic, who was interviewed in the Spring of 2006 and is to start as an assistant professor in the School in September was told to start working on his registration and indeed he has applied to become registered. We have a few faculty members whose undergraduate degrees are in areas other than engineering, and thus, technically are not eligible for registration. However, all of these individuals have many years of engineering experience and we have made arguments to APEGBC on a case by case basis for some of these individuals. In the case of Professor Rawicz, we were successful in convincing the APEGBC, and his application has now been accepted, and we expect him to become a PEng soon. We have also initiated a similar discussion with APEGBC about Professor Hobson, and plan to put forward the case of Mr. Lucky One, our Senior Lecturer, once he is back from his Study Leave.
The second deficiency, i.e. the percentage of courses with ES+ED component taught by the professional engineers, has improved and will be greatly improved once all of the above mentioned faculty register as professional engineers. However, the School, to the extent possible, is assigning courses with high ES+ED components to faculty members who are registered professional engineers to further address this issue.
2A.23 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS – THE ENGINEERING UNIT:
The School sets a high priority on maintaining individual and institutional links with industry, in order to ensure the continuing relevance of our syllabi. These links take several forms, some of which are outlined below.
By far the strongest links with industry are through individual consulting, technology transfer and entrepreneurial activities. Despite its small size prior to 2003, the School has a truly outstanding record in these areas:


  • At least six faculty members have launched startup companies, with products and employees. Most of these startups are rooted in work conducted at SFU. One member has started two such companies.

  • Over two thirds of our faculty members have post-doctoral industrial experience through employment at companies other than their own.

  • Almost all faculty members, including Lecturers in communication skills, have had national and international consultancies or advisory roles to industrial firms.

  • Over one third of our faculty members have successfully transferred their technologies to companies. The Manning Foundation’s annual Principal Innovation Award, Canada’s most prestigious award for innovative, commercially-successful technology, has gone to faculty members of our small School three times in the Foundation’s 25-year history, a record unmatched by any other school in Canada.

  • Many faculty members spend part or all of their sabbatical leaves working with companies.

SFU’s Co-op program provides additional links with industry. Students gain first-hand experience with industrial practices during their three mandatory Co-op semesters. Students may complete as many as six Co-op work terms and their undergraduate thesis in industry. Many students also benefit from international placements through programs such as Co-op Japan. To keep the Co-op program lively and expanding, School staff members are frequent visitors to employers, whether large or small, local, national or international. The School’s Undergraduate Curriculum Committee has a permanent position for a representative of our Co-op staff in order to track employment trends and implications for curriculum.


A less formal link with industry is through our Adjunct Professors, who are appointed in recognition of their affiliations with the School. About half of them are industry leaders – CEOs, senior managers and entrepreneurs - who can act as advisors and advocates for the School. The Adjunct Professors constitute an informal industrial advisory board to the School, and they are invited to all School retreats. Adjunct Professors are invited to give guest lectures in courses and provide advice in student projects, thereby providing a real-world perspective.


2A.24 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT – THE ENGINEERING UNIT:
In this section of the report, we summarize what we see as the major issues facing Engineering Science in the coming years.
In the last few years the School has been planning and expanding the scope of the programs that we offer, and as well, has been strengthening the existing programs. In the next few years we expect that we will continue with the development of our plans. The following highlight our planned activities:


  • The School proposed a new undergraduate, as well as graduate degree program in Mechatronic Systems Engineering (MSE) to be offered at SFU-Surrey. A proposal outlining the personnel, equipment, and space needs for the new program was put together and communicated to the University. The proposed program was supported by our Dean and was accepted by the University's Senior Administration. The work on the space for the program will be completed in December 2006 and the space will made available to the School. We anticipate being very busy developing this program in the next few years. Three senior faculty members have already been hired for the program. We plan to have 15 faculty members for that program in the steady state. Work that still needs to be completed is as follows: hiring the remaining faculty, technical and secretarial staff; putting together a curriculum for the program and making sure that the proposed program will meet the CEAB criteria; obtaining Provincial and University approval for the new program; planning teaching and research laboratories; development of lab experiments and purchase of equipment for the teaching labs; and development of the graduate program.




  • The new Biomedical Engineering (BME) undergraduate curriculum was officially approved in January 2005 by the decision of SFU Senate. The program was created jointly with the School of Kinesiology. The BME curriculum was designed to meet all the CEAB requirements. The program is offered only in an honors version. Over the next few years, the School plans to fill the remaining faculty positions for this program, plan and develop new laboratories for this program, and acquire new lab equipment for the BME labs.




  • A number of other issues dealing with our undergraduate program are being dealt with and work on them will continue in the next few years. In an attempt to deal and lower our attrition rate, the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee (UCC) has conducted a survey of our students in order to identify possible problems in the curriculum and the workload. Major problems identified are the heavy engineering course load and the fact that the change from high school to university is simply too overwhelming for some students to cope with. The Committee is looking at means to alleviating some of these problems. Long completion time is another issue that the UCC is grappling with and will be looking at ways to improve it. Other initiatives include discussions with support schools, such as Math, Physics, and Computer Science, to see if they can revise and offer more focused and efficient courses for engineering students. Additionally, we are in discussions with the Faculty of Business on possibility of offering joint or dual degrees which are of interest to some engineering students.




  • The Co-op Program is a key part of our undergraduate curriculum. Indeed, most of our students cite Co-op as one of the most important parts of their education and often credit their Co-op experience with obtaining key job offers upon graduation. Because our students have developed a reputation for excellence, our program is recognized as a source of high-quality engineers by local and national high technology companies. The School plans to Identify and develop new growth areas for Co-op jobs, such as those in Biomedical and Mechatronics areas while maintaining market share. In addition, we shall look into ways to ensure that the Engineering Science Co-op program continues to provide exceptional service to key stakeholders (students, employers, faculty and staff) despite the growth in our program.




  • Recruitment of highly qualified students into engineering will be a major issue of interest in the next few years. The School has had its challenges in the last couple of years in meeting its enrolment targets. Increased competition for top students, reduction in the number of high school applicants, new changes to SFU admission standards and introduction of SIMS, historical and cyclic rise and fall in demand for certain engineering fields, IT sector crash, perceived negative effects of globalization and outsourcing, are examples of the attributing factors. We plan to step up our efforts in recruitment by hiring a recruiter/advisor in 2006 to help organize recruitment activities and develop a renewed strategy for our recruitment efforts. Note that the Engineering Science Co-op Office staff currently handles all recruitment activities for the School of Engineering Science. Other efforts include introducing revised promotional materials with a renewed emphasis on Biomedical Engineering as well as the new Mechatronic Systems Engineering Program, increased partnership with the Central SFU Recruitment team to recognize areas for collaboration and joint/cross promotion. Faculty involvement is important at every stage of the recruitment phase and the School will encourage further involvement in outreach activities.


SECTION 2B

TABULAR INFORMATION


TABLE 2B.1

PERSONNEL – Engineering Science

PERSONNEL CATEGORY
ACADEMIC YEAR

2003/2004

2004/2005

2005/2006

Update

Full-Time Faculty (FTF)

27.7

32.0

34.0




Part-Time Faculty (PTF)

5.0

5.0

5.0




Full-Time Equivalent Faculty (FTEF)

28.5

32.6

34.9




FTF on Study Leave

0.7

3.7

1.7




FTF on Other Leave

0.2

0.7

1.4




Teaching Assistant Hours (TAH)

10,395.0

11,116.14

13,321.14







Technical Professional Staff:

Full-Time Equivalent (FTET)

7.4

8.0

8.8




Full-Time Program Equivalent (FTPET)

7.4

8.0

8.8




Office Staff (FTEO)

10.4

10

10







Other Staff: (Identify)

Temporary Technical Staff

0

0

0.8




Temporary Office Staff

0.1

0.3

0.1





NOTES:

PTF: Sessionals teaching undergrad courses only.

FTEF: PTF conversion: Six 3-credit courses = 1 FTF.

As of August 31, 2006



TABLE 2B.2
FULL-TIME FACULTY INFORMATION – Engineering Science


INFORMATION PROVIDED FOR

YEARS 2005/2006

PROFESSOR

ASSOCIATE

PROFESSOR

ASSISTANT

PROFESSOR

LECTURER

NUMBER:

17

3

5

7

AVERAGE AGE:

52.7

48.3

33.0

42.7

CURRENT VACANCIES:

Tenure Track:

























8










Limited Term:





































TERMINATIONS:

For Years: 2004-2006

Resignations:







2




























Non-Renewals:





































Retirements, Deaths:

1

1

1




























NEW HIRINGS:

For Years: 2004-2006

Tenure Track:

1

1










1

3

1













Lecturers:




























1

2





NOTES:


  • Number of faculty members shown in this table are as of the fiscal year end March 31, 2006.

  • Average Age information was compiled as of April 28, 2006

  • Current vacancies are as of August 31, 2006

  • Positions filled from fall 2006 are shown as current vacancies in this table.

  • Terminations and new hirings are for the three academic years from fall 2003-summer 2006


TABLE 2B.2 (Cont’d)
FULL-TIME FACULTY INFORMATION – Cont’d
AGE DISTRIBUTION (FTF): Information as of (2006, March 31):


NUMBER OF FACULTY

34


























































32


























































30


























































28


























































26


























































24


























































22


























































20


























































18


























































16


























































14


























































12


























































10


























































8













8































6

6







6


























































4







4

























3




3
















2






















2







1






















1

0































< 30

30-34

35-39

40-44

45-49

50-54

55-59

60-63

64+
AGE



NOTES: As of April 19, 2006

TABLE 2B.3
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING REGISTRATIONS – Engineering Science


COURSES

(List all in the Program)



NUMBER OF AUs

INSTRUCTORS

(List names)



REGISTRATION

STATUS*

(Indicate P.Eng., Eng. or EIT)



CourseTotal

ES

ED

ES+ED

CHEM 121-4

58.5

0

0

0

S. Holdcroft

N/A

CHEM 180-3

39

0

0

0

D. Vocadlo

N/A

CMPT 128-3

39

31.2

7.8

39

R. Vaughan

N/A

CMPT 225-3

45.5

36.4

9.1

45.5

A. Lavergne

N/A

CMPT 275-4

52

20.8

26

46.8

J.Regan/T.J. Donaldson

N/A

CMPT 300-3

39

31.2

7.8

39

B. Bart

N/A

ECON 103-3

39

0

0

0

G. Dow

N/A

ENSC 100-3

39

0

0

0

J. Jones

P.Eng.

ENSC 101-1

13

0

0

0

S. Whitmore

N/A

ENSC 102-1

13

0

0

0

M. Sjoerdsma

E.I.T.

ENSC 150-3

39

15.6

21.45

37.05

A. Hajshirmohammadi

Applicant

ENSC 151-2

26

6.5

18.2

24.7

C. Scratchley

Applicant

ENSC 201-3

39

0

0

0

M. Volker

P.Eng.

ENSC 204-1

13

0

2.6

2.6

M. Sjoerdsma

E.I.T.

ENSC 220-3

45.5

18.2

22.75

40.95

A. Hajshirmohammadi

Applicant

ENSC 224-3

45.5

36.4

9.1

45.5

K. Karim

P.Eng.

ENSC 225-4

52

36.4

15.6

52

A. Parameswaran.

P.Eng.

ENSC 230-4

52

20.8

10.4

31.2

S. Payandeh

P.Eng.

ENSC 250.3

39

19.5

19.5

39

R. Johnstone




ENSC 304-1

13

0

3.9

3.9

E. Graham




ENSC 305-1

13

0

6.5

6.5

M. Sjoerdsma

E.I.T.

ENSC 320-3

52

36.4

15.6

52

J. Bird

P.Eng.

TOTAL

806

309.4

196.3

505.7




TABLE 2B.3 (Cont’d)
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING REGISTRATIONS – Engineering Science


COURSES

(List all in the Program)



NUMBER OF AUs

INSTRUCTORS

(List names)



REGISTRATION

STATUS*

(Indicate P.Eng., Eng. or EIT)



CourseTotal

ES

ED

ES+ED

ENSC 325-4

65

45.5

19.5

65

K. Karim

P.Eng.

ENSC 327-4

52

41.6

10.4

52

A. Hajshirmohammadi

Applicant

ENSC 330-4

52

26

0

26

B. Kaminska




ENSC 340-4

52

15.6

26

41.6

A. Rawicz/P. Ho

Applicant/P.Eng

ENSC 350-3

45.5

18.2

27.3

45.5

P. Leung

P.Eng.

ENSC 351-4

52

10.4

41.6

52

C. Scratchley

Applicant

ENSC 370-3

39

17.55

17.55

35.1

A. Rawicz

Applicant

ENSC 372-4

52

31.2

20.8

52

A. Leung

P.Eng.

ENSC 374-4

52

41.6

10.4

52

K. Karim

P.Eng.

ENSC 376-4

52

41.6

10.4

52

G. Chapman

P.Eng.

ENSC 378-2

26

5.2

20.8

26

B. Jaggi

P.Eng.

ENSC 380-3

45.5

36.4

9.1

45.5

D.I. Kim

P.Eng.

ENSC 383-4

52

41.6

10.4

52

B. Gruver

P.Eng.

ENSC 387-4

52

36.4

15.6

52

B. Gray

P.Eng.

ENSC 406-2

26

0

0

0

M. Sjoerdsma

E.I.T.

ENSC 424-4

52

41.6

10.4

52

J. Liang

P.Eng.

ENSC 425-4

52

20.8

31.2

52

A. Leung

P.Eng.

ENSC 426-4

52

31.2

20.8

52

S. Stapleton

P.Eng.

ENSC 427-4

52

41.6

10.4

52

S. Hardy

P.Eng.

ENSC 428-4

52

39

13

52

D.I. Kim

P.Eng.

SUB-TOTAL

(from previous page)



806

309.4

196.3

505.7




TOTAL

1781

892.45

521.95

1414.4




TABLE 2B.3 (Cont’d)
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING REGISTRATIONS – Engineering Science


COURSES

(List all in the Program)



NUMBER OF AUs

INSTRUCTORS

(List names)



REGISTRATION

STATUS*

(Indicate P.Eng., Eng. or EIT)



CourseTotal

ES

ED

ES+ED

ENSC 429-4

52

36.4

15.6

52

P. Ho

P.Eng.

ENSC 440-4

52

15.6

26

41.6

A. Rawicz/P.Ho

Applicant/P.Eng

ENSC 450-4

52

20.8

31.2

52

R. Hobson

No

ENSC 472-4

52

41.6

10.4

52

A. Rawicz

Applicant

ENSC 474-4

52

41.6

10.4

52

F. Beg

P.Eng.

ENSC 476-4

52

41.6

10.4

52

G. Chapman

P.Eng.

ENSC 481-4

52

20.8

20.8

41.6

A. Rawicz

Applicant

ENSC 483-4

52

41.6

10.4

52

M. Saif

P.Eng.

ENSC 488-4

52

41.6

10.4

52

K. Gupta

P.Eng.

ENSC 489-4

52

31.2

20.8

52

J. Dill

P.Eng.

ENSC 495-4

52

39

13

52

B. Gray

P.Eng.

KIN 201-3

45.5

0

0

0

S.N. Robinovitch

P.Eng.

KIN 208-3

45.5

0

0

0

P. Bawa./ R. Ward.

N/A

KIN 308-3

32.5

6.5

0

6.5

T.E. Milner.

N/A

MACM 101-3

39

0

0

0

B. Bart

N/A

MACM 201-3

39

0

0

0

M. Dubiel

N/A

MACM 316-3

45.5

0

0

0

M. Dubiel

N/A

MATH 151-3

45.5

0

0

0

M. Dubiel

N/A

MATH 152-3

45.5

0

0

0

M. Dubiel

N/A

MATH 232-3

45.5

0

0

0

M. Dubiel

N/A

SUB-TOTAL

(from previous page)



1781

892.45

521.95

1414.4




TOTAL

2736.5

1270.75

701.35

1972.1




TABLE 2B.3 (Cont’d)
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING REGISTRATIONS – Engineering Science


COURSES

(List all in the Program)



NUMBER OF AUs

INSTRUCTORS

(List names)



REGISTRATION

STATUS*

(Indicate P.Eng., Eng. or EIT)



CourseTotal

ES

ED

ES+ED

MATH 251-3

45.5

0

0

0

M. Dubiel

N/A

MATH 254-3

45.5

0

0

0

A. Oberman

N/A

MATH 310-3

45.5

0

0

0

M. Dubiel

N/A

PHYS 120-3

45.5

0

0

0

J. Sonier

N/A

PHYS 121-3

45.5

0

0

0

M. Short

N/A

PHYS 131-2

26

0

0

0

S. Johnson

N/A

PHYS 211-3

45.5

18.2

0

18.2

J. Bechhoefer

N/A

PHYS 221-3

45.5

0

0

0

P. Mooney

N/A

PHYS 233-2

26

13

0

13

K. Kavanagh

N/A

PHYS 324-3

45.5

0

0

0

B. Heinrich

N/A

PHYS 332-3

26

13

0

13

J.S. Dodge

N/A

PHYS 344-3

45.5

22.75

0

22.75

J. Jones

P.Eng.

PHYS 355-3

45.5

0

0

0

J.S. Dodge

N/A

PHYS 365-3

45.5

36.4

0

36.4

K. Kavanagh

N/A

PHYS 384-3

45.5

0

0

0

D. Horvat

N/A

PHYS 385-3

45.5

0

0

0

J. Sonier

N/A

STAT 270-3

45.5

0

0

0

R. Insley

N/A

SUB-TOTAL

(from previous page)



2736.5

1270.75

701.35

1972.1




TOTAL

3451.5

1374.1

701.35

2075.45



*Tabular updates will be expected at the time of the visit and at the CEAB decision meeting.




1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11


The database is protected by copyright ©sckool.org 2016
send message

    Main page