Detailed Discussions for BSEE and BS Comp. Eng. Curriculum Reform for the 2002-2004 Catalog

Talks in Chronological Order

Table of Contents

This document attempts to summarize the ideas presented during formal and informal discussions about ideas for a BSEE curriculum for the 2002-2004 catalog. The formal discussions in Spring 2000 included four BSEE curriculum reform meetings and an ECE Visiting Committee (technical advisory board) meeting. In parallel with the discussions involving the BSEE curriculum, discussions involving the BS Comp. Eng. curriculum for the 2002-2004 catalog were being moderated by Prof. Craig Chase. The ideas for the revised BSEE degree that have received some consensus have been assembled in Section 6.0 Proposals for a New BSEE Curriculum. Based on those proposals, we have created a four-year schedule of courses and a two-year schedule of courses for transfer students.

1.0 Introduction

We are considering ways to improve the BS degree in Electrical Engineering curriculum. We plan to take a top-down and a bottom-up approach. We are not considering the Computer Engineering curriculum, as that is the responsibility of another committee headed by Prof. Craig Chase.

A variety of innovative technologies has attracted past generations of students into electrical engineering:

These technologies contain an increasing amount of communications, signal processing, and networking capabilities. These technologies are also increasingly digital, and software is making up a larger and larger part of the digital subsystems. Analog, radio frequency, and optical subsystems are needed to interface the digital subsystems to the physical world. The shrinking area, volume, and power consumption of consumer electronic products, as well as the continued exponential increase in clock speeds on programmable processors, are largely due to advances in devices and semiconductor manufacturing. A balanced understanding of the theory and practice of devices, circuits, systems, software, electromagnetics, technical communication, and business practice would prepare our BSEE students for success.

1.1 BSEE Curriculum in the 1998-2000 Catalog

In the 1998-2000 catalog, the BSEE degree requires a total of 128 hours of coursework. A minimum of 60 hours of EE courses must be taken: 51 hours of required EE courses and 9 elective hours for a technical area. These 60 hours of EE courses can be categorized as follows:

Topic Percentage Credit Hours Courses
analog circuits and systems 40% 24.3 3/5 EE302 + 2/3 EE313 + EE411 + 1/2 EE321 + EE321K + EE338 + EE338K + EE351K + EE362K
specialization 18% 11.0 1/2 EE464H/K + 3 technical area electives
analog devices/electromagnetics 10% 6.0 EE325 + EE339
technical communication 9% 5.6 EE155 + EE333T + 4/10 EE464H/K
digital logic/microprocessors 8% 5.0 1/6 EE302 + EE316 + 1/2 EE319K
programming 8% 4.5 EE312 + 1/2 EE319K
discrete-time processing/data acquisition 4% 2.5 1/3 EE313 + 1/2 EE321
business practice 2% 1.1 0.2333 EE302 (ethics) + 1/10 EE464H/K (ethics)
Total 100% 60.0

1.2 1998-2000 BSEE Curriculum Based on Analog Circuits

In the BSEE curriculum in the 1998-2000 catalog, nearly half of the 60 EE credit hours are spent on analog devices, circuits, systems, and electromagnetics. Six of the required analog circuits courses plus senior design project form a pre-requisite chain that takes six semesters to complete:

EE302 --> EE411 --> EE313, EE338, EE321 --> EE338K --> EE321K --> EE464H/K

This long pre-requisite has two disadvantages:

  1. it may delay students from taking technical area electives that rely on EE338K until the senior year, and
  2. it may prevent transfer students from finishing the BSEE degree in less than three years.
The first disadvantage has a dramatic impact on two technical areas: Electronics Materials and Devices, and Integrated Electronics. Concerning the latter disadvantage, about one-fifth of the undergraduate students entering the Department of ECE each year are transfer students from institutions other than UT Austin, as explained next. The second disadvantage is described next.

1.3 Transfer Students

Transfer students from institutions other than UT Austin accounted for 18.9% of the new students enrolled in the ECE Department during the 1999-2000 academic year. During Summer 1999, Fall 1999, and Spring 2000 semesters, 106 students from institutions other than UT Austin transferred to the ECE Department: 11 freshmen, 59 sophomores, 24 juniors, and 12 seniors. These classifications depend on the total number of transferred hours: freshman 0-29, sophomore 30-59, junior 60-89, and senior 90+. In Fall 1999, 463 new freshmen enrolled.

When considering changes to the BSEE curriculum, two key concerns for transfer students are:

  1. smooth transition into the BSEE degree, and
  2. expedience in finishing the BSEE degree
Transfer students may not always have learned the necessary calculus, science, and/or programming knowledge to sufficient depth to make a smooth transition into the BSEE degree. In EE411 Circuit Theory during the Spring 2000 semester, Prof. Takis Konstantopoulos gave a background evaluation test of basic calculus and science knowledge (quiz #1) and a test on introductory circuits material (quiz #2). Quiz #2 tested the material in the first two weeks of the course (Ohm's law, KVL, KCL for circuits with one loop). On average, transfer students performed a letter grade lower than non-transfer students on the first two quizzes, as shown below.

Student Status Students Quiz 1
Average 		Quiz 1
Std. Dev. 		Quiz 2
Average 		Quiz 2
Std. Dev.
Non-transfer 85 62% 14% 80% 22%
Transfer 41 55% 13% 73% 22%

To help make the transition more smooth, the ECE department publishes suggestions for transferring into the ECE department from Austin Community College.

Concerning expedience in finishing the BSEE degree under the 1998-2000 catalog, the biggest obstacle encountered by a transfer student is the following pre-requisite chain of required EE courses:

EE302 --> EE411 --> EE313, EE338, EE321 --> EE338K --> EE321K --> EE464H/K

In satisfying this pre-requisite chain, a transfer student would need to spend a minimum of three years at UT. One workaround for the long pre-requisite chain has been to allow transfer students to take a special section of EE411 Circuit Theory as their first EE course. Those students would either take EE302 in parallel with EE411, or opt out of EE302. Although this workaround reduces the time spent at UT to two years if the transfer student attends both summer sessions, this workaround has two disadvantages:

  1. The special section of EE411 has to cover 1.5 semesters of analog circuits material in 1 semester, which makes the transition into the BSEE degree more difficult.
  2. A special section of EE411 has to be developed, maintained, and taught.
In revising the BSEE curriculum, we will try to keep the unique needs of transfer students in mind.

1.4 ABET, IEEE, and University Guidelines

The ABET, IEEE, and University guidelines for a BSEE degree are given in more detail in Appendix G and summarized below.

A summary of ABET Guidelines follows:

IEEE Guidelines suggest that BSEE students have knowledge of The University's basic education requirements comprise the following:

2.0 Ideal Set of Skills for Success in Industry

2.1 Question

What are the five ideal skills that a graduating BSEE student should possess for success in industry?

2.2 Discussion

Concerning technical communication, the committee members are very satisfied with the current content and scope of the required technical communication courses EE155, EE333T, and EE464H/K. The technical communication program is headed by David Beer. David Beer points out that the new name for EE333T Technical Communication will be EE333T Engineering Communication in the 2000-2002 catalog. David Beer also suggests that we might consider integrating more technical communication in other EE courses besides EE155, EE333T, and EE464H/K. EE302 has already implemented this integration to some extent.

Concerning technical communication, the committee members have suggested to move EE155 to the freshman or sophomore years so that they can get an earlier perspective on the field of electrical engineering. EE155 already helps students to explore different technical fields to help them choose the direction for their career, and hence, their technical area(s) for the BSEE degree. Ray Russell believe that moving EE155 earlier in the curriculum is fine, but suggests that English 306 be an explicit pre-requisite. Ray Russell points out that "I make a pitch to the potential presenters that this course is a platform for them to 'showcase' their companies to students who will soon be graduating." Moving EE155 to the freshman or sophomore years would require a change in this emphasis.

Concerning teamwork, students work in teams of two in the laboratory courses. On rare occasion in EE464H, students work in teams of 3 or 4; however, EE464K students must work in teams of 2. The only required course in which students work in teams of more than 2 is EE302.

Concerning understanding of the product development cycle, our current required courses do not cover all aspects of the cycle. EE464H/K currently covers the design process. EE464H students may specify their own project, whereas EE464K projects are specified by the instructors. EE464H/K does not cover testing and manufacture.

Concerning general programming skills, the required courses in the 1998-2000 catalog train students to program in assembly language and C in EE319K, and C++ in EE312. The required courses do not teach algorithms, data structures, and software engineering (specification, development, and testing). The required courses also do not cover Matlab as a programming language. Therefore, a programming course beyond EE312 should be a required course.

Concerning how programming is taught, Francis Bostick, Dewayne Perry, and Yale Patt suggest a bottom-up approach. The first class would start with gates then memory elements and ALUs and finally assembly language. We could call this new course EE306 Introduction to Computing. The second class would cover with C and Matlab as imperative programming languages. C is really a key high-level implementation language for software developed for embedded microcontrollers and digital signal processors and for fast implementations of functions for desktop computing. Matlab is to control, signal processing, imaging, and communication algorithm designers as Spice is to analog/RF circuit designers.

Concerning familiarity with software tools in their respective areas, e.g. Matlab and Spice, Francis Bostick has suggested that Spice be integrated into a sophomore EE course. In addition, Francis suggested that sophomores be trained in C and Matlab.

2.3 Proposals

3.0 Most Important EE Topics to Cover for Today's EE

3.1 Question

What are the five most important topics to cover in an EE curriculum?

3.2 Discussion

Francis Bostick points out that in the ECE Department,

Can a four-year degree adequately prepare a person to be productive at a company without additional training? The consensus was "no". Companies train new hires, and often require annual professional development and training.

The issue of abstraction is a serious one because of Moore's Law. Moore's Law states that the number of transistors on a single chip doubles every 18 months. Hence, the complexity of design and testing is growing exponentially. During a four-year degree, for example, this complexity would increase by a factor of 6. Design abstraction is the key to handle this complexity, yet design abstraction is not covered in any of the required courses. Abstraction is a basic tenet of object-oriented programming.

3.3 Proposals

4.0 Most Important EE Topics to Cover for Tomorrow's EE

4.1 Question

What are the five most important technical topics that an EE who graduates in the next 5-10 years will need to know?

Technology is exploding and becoming increasingly multidisciplinary. I am expecting this list to be quite different from the answer to the previous top-down question concerning the current five most important technical topics an EE should know.

4.2 Discussion

None.

4.3 Proposals

5.0 Major Sequence

5.1 Question

As Jack Lee points out, students have been complaining that seven required analog circuits and electronics courses are too many. 58% of the undergraduate students are in computer engineering. Most of them are in digital hardware design or software and simply do not need seven circuits courses. The seven circuits courses follow:

EE302 Introduction to Electrical and Computer Eng.
EE411 Circuit Theory
EE321 Electrical Engineering Lab I
EE321K Electrical Engineering Lab II
EE338 Electronic Circuits I
EE338K Electronic Circuits II
EE464K Senior Design Course

This listing is in order of the middle digit, even though EE338 is a pre-requisite for EE321 and EE338K is a pre-requisite for EE321K. Please offer a proposal that might improve this situation.

5.2 Discussion

Concerning EE302 and EE464H/K, Gary Hallock points out that EE302 is about 60% analog circuits. The early EE302 course covered less circuit material. EE464K is not inherently a circuits course, although many of the assigned projects are circuits-based. About 1/3 of our students now take EE464H Honors Senior Design Course, in which the students can define their own projects. Very few EE464H projects involve analog circuit design. If we desire less circuits in 464K, then we just need to develop the appropriate projects and make sure the labs can support them.

Otto Friedrich points out that new engineers at an engineering firm do not know that the information they need is available on the Internet. Brian Evans believes that a good place to enforce this reality is in EE464H/K Senior Design Project.

In the 1998-2000 catalog, six of the required analog circuits courses plus senior design project form a pre-requisite chain that takes six semesters to complete:

EE302 --> EE411 --> EE313, EE338, EE321 --> EE338K --> EE321K --> EE464H/K

5.3 Proposals

Rebecca Richards-Kortum proposes to

Gary Daniels proposes to Jack Lee proposes to Gustavo de Veciana proposes to Brian Evans proposes the following to help strength the continuous variable math skills of the BSEE student:

The committee also proposes to

6.0 Suggested Proposals for a New BSEE Curriculum

The following proposals have received consensus at three open meetings held in January and February of 2000. The key ideas are: The parallel tracks (circuits, systems, digital, programming, electromagnetics, and writing) could allow students to enter into their technical areas earlier and transfer students to finish the BSEE degree earlier. If a transfer student has already completed the non-engineering requirements for graduation, then the transfer student could finish the BSEE degree in as little as two years (four long semesters plus two summer semesters). The engineering course requirements are 16 required EE courses, 6 technical area elective courses, and 2 other technical elective courses. From a faculty perspective, the decoupling of courses into parallel tracks could make it easier for the various curriculum area committees to make changes to courses.

The six tracks of required courses follow:

There is some overlap between the tracks: Nonetheless, the parallel tracks would allow students to access EE electives sooner and enable transfer students to graduate faster: Other electrical engineering courses required for the BSEE degree follow: Other required courses: A new technical area in Circuit Design is proposed that would consist of EE316, EE321, EE321K, and EE338K. In addition, EE316 could be added as a technical area elective in Computer Engineering (Group 2) and Integrated Electronics since it is a pre-requisite for EE360M and EE360R, respectively. See Appendix A: Discussion about EE316.

We suggest making PHY355 optional and add it to two Technical Areas: Electromagnetic Engineering, and Electronic Materials and Devices. Some of the material in PHY355, such as quantum physics and Heisenberg uncertainity, are covered in EE 339.

The proposed changes

Three of the freed courses become a second technical area.

Based on these proposals, the 49 credit hours of required EE courses and 18 hours of technical area electives for the BSEE degree would cover the following topics:

Topic Percentage Credit Hours Formula
specialization 30% 20.0 Advanced Lab + 1/2 EE464H/K + 5 technical area electives
analog circuits and systems 24% 16.5 1/2 EE302 + 2/3 EE313 + EE411 + 3/4 EE438 + EE351K + EE362K
digital logic/microprocessors 10% 6.5 1/6 EE302 + EE306 + EE319K
programming 9% 6.0 EE312 + EE322
analog devices/electromagnetics 9% 6.0 EE325 + EE339
technical communication 8% 5.6 EE155 + EE333T + 4/10 EE464H/K
business practice 6% 3.9 1/6 EE302 (ethics) + 1/10 EE464H/K (ethics) + EE366 (economics)
discrete-time processing/data acquisition 4% 2.5 1/6 EE302 + 1/3 EE313 + 1/4 438
Total 100% 67.0

7.0 Technical Areas

7.1 Question

What changes would you make to the technical areas?

7.2 Discussion

The technical areas will likely be impacted by decisions about the major sequence. In the previous section, the consensus proposal creates a new technical area called Circuits that consists of EE316, EE321, EE321K, and EE338K. The consensus proposal also adds PHY355 as an elective in the technical areas of Electromagnetic Engineering, and Electronic Materials and Devices.

Since the Fall of 1996, about 2/3 of the ECE students have either majored in computer engineering or have chosen the computer engineering technical area. During the same time, about 1/6 of the ECE students have chosen one of three telecommunications technical areas.

7.3 Proposals

8.0 Basic Sequence

Class Amount of Material Decade of Syllabus Relevance to all EEs Any Redundant Material Course Rating Instructor Rating
EE302 Just right (DHLR) 1980s Yes (HR) Make optional (L) Too narrow (EV) No 3.65 3.65
EE411 Too much (EV) Just right (LR) 1980s Yes (HL) No (E) Yes, with EE302 3.80 3.55
EE312 Should cover more (V) 1990s Yes (EL) Medium (H) No 3.00 3.05
EE313 Too much (E) 1980s Yes (EH) No 3.60 3.69
EE316 Redundant with itself 1980s Yes (DL) Medium (H) No (E) Yes, with EE302 3.33 3.03
EE319K 1990s Yes (DEL) Medium (H) No 3.18 3.24

The Course Ratings and Instructor Ratings represent the average of these ratings given on the Student Evaluation from Fall 1996 to Summer 1999 semester, inclusive, with the exception of EE313 which has only been taught since Fall 1998. The average was only computed for adjunct, instructional, tenure-track, and tenured faculty. Teaching assistant ratings were not included. The average overall instructor rating for the College of Engineering is 3.9 (out of 5.0).

9.0 Visiting Committee Comments

After discussion with representative students and faculty, the committee expressed concern that classroom performance by professors and instructors is not receiving the emphasis that it deserves to ensure the continued improvement in the quality of the Department. The quality of the teaching process appears to vary widely from one course or section to the next, ranging from excellent in some cases to negligible or non-existent in others. This appears to go beyond the expected "normal distribution" of teaching talent, to the point that some courses are of negligible benefit to anyone.

It appears that the system of punishments and rewards existing within the Department, and the College of Engineering as well, fail to encourage classroom excellence on a par with, for example, research activities. Further, it appears that the Chairman has precious few tools with which to promote teaching excellence among the ECE faculty (or to discourage the opposite).

As representatives of industry, the traditional consumer base of the Department's products, the members consider this a very serious matter. We expect UT ECE graduates to have the knowledge and skills that are implied by their transcript. We urge the Department to devote effort to finding ways to bring the reward system into a balance that will support continued growth of UT in the rankings, and that will ensure that students receive the support required to master their studies.

The committee heard other, more specific concerns expressed by students and faculty:

  1. The EE and CE curricula may not be laid out in a truly "logical sequence of learning."
  2. The CE curriculum is too much like the EE curriculum. Students would like to begin to specialize earlier in the curriculum.
  3. There is interest in adding a third specialty option, referred to as "generalist." Indeed, several other departments whose curricula were reviewed had more than two specialty options.
  4. There is a general lack of sufficient orientation service to give students the knowledge required to choose their major, their specialty and their elective courses intelligently. The other Universities that offer more curriculum flexibility supplement it with adequate counseling.
  5. The number of Teaching Assistants is currently inadequate.
  6. There is an interest in having more co-ops.
  7. There is the feeling that the EE155 Seminar Course should be offered earlier in the program.
  8. There is the concern that some Professors and Instructors do not maintain office hours rigorously enough.
  9. On a more subjective note, there is a sense that the students do not feel that the faculty really cares if they learn the material, that loyalty to the Department is low, and that the camaraderie among students is not as high as in other highly-ranked universities.
As such, the Visiting Committee (VC) recommends that the ECE department evaluates the 10 points discussed above and provide the VC with a proposed plan for addressing these issues.

10.0 Agenda for the February 15, 2000, Meeting

The focus of the meeting on February 15, 2000, was to discuss what courses belong in the basic sequence and what content should be in them. The consensus was that the basic sequence courses should be EE302, EE306, EE411, EE312, EE313, and EE319K. The suggestion at the two previous meetings to make EE316 an elective for the BSEE degree received consensus for the third time.

The agenda for the meeting follows:

  1. 5 minutes: Agenda for the meeting and summary of previous discussions: Brian Evans
  2. 5 minutes: The importance of abstraction: Brian Evans
  3. 15 minutes: Increasing the place of Information, Signals, and Systems early in our EE (CE/SE) curriculum: Gustavo de Veciana (Slides)
  4. 15 minutes. Discussion concerning EE302
  5. 15 minutes: Summary of the content in EE316: Chuck Roth
  6. 15 minutes. Discussion of ideas for updating EE316
  7. 15 minutes: Ideas for a new EE306 and EE312 sequence: Yale Patt
  8. 15 minutes. Discussion of EE306 and EE312 and its impact on EE319K and EE316
  9. 15 minutes: Ideas for changes to EE411: Jack Lee
  10. 15 minutes. Discussion of ideas for EE411 and its impact on EE338 (438) and EE321
  11. 15 minutes: Ideas for changes to EE313: Brian Evans
  12. 15 minutes. Discussion concerning EE313
Gustavo's talk also presented ideas on how to improve the continuous variable math skills of the BSEE students, esp. matrix algebra, complex arithmetic, and optimization.

11.0 Agenda for the February 29, 2000, Meeting

The focus for this next meeting was to consider the required EE courses in the "major" sequence: The scheduled agenda follows:

12.0 Agenda for the February 9, 2001, ECE Faculty Meeting

The focus of this next meeting was to vote on specific proposals for both BSEE and BS Comp. Eng. curriculums. The agenda follows.

13.0 Committee Members

The committee coordinating the faculty discussion on the BSEE degree for the 2002-2004 catalog consists of the following faculty: The following students have been participating in the discussion of the ideas for a new BSEE curriculum:

Last updated 06/09/02. Mail comments about this page to bevans@ece.utexas.edu.