2009 Advisory Board Report

 

Review Date: October 16, 2009

Team Members Participating (in person, by phone, or in later correspondence):

 

Everett Bloom                       Oak Ridge National Laboratory - Retired

Wendy Craig                         MacSteel

Chris Misterek                       John Deere

Ray Peterson                         Aleris International

Shane Vernon                        Nucor Steel

Shawn Veurink                      RPM and Associates

Richard Wensel                     Micron Technology

 

 

SUMMARY

 

The faculty and staff of the Materials and Metallurgical Engineering Department at the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology (SDSM&T) have made outstanding progress in addressing fundamental issues impacting the department since our last on-site Advisory Board Review.  In particular they have skillfully navigated the transitional period of three faculty retirements (out of five positions) during a period when the school administration did not seem particularly interested in sustaining the department.  They have increased the number of students in the department and they have dramatically increased their outside research funding.  All actions have improved the strength of the department and benefited the larger goals of the school.

 

The Department continues to produce quality students who are well accepted by industry and academia, both regionally and nationally.  The future concerns for the Department to address include planning for and executing the transition of a retiring faculty with the concurrent hiring of a qualified replacement, providing opportunities for a full spectrum of materials science curricula, and increasing the faculty level by at least one member.  The addition of one more faculty member could help increase the breadth of class offerings and allow faculty members the opportunity to continue to seek more outside research funding opportunities.

 

The B.S. Metallurgical Degree Program educational objectives remain current and appropriate.  Alumni surveys and feedback from board members on the program’s alumni performance in the workplace indicate that the objectives are being met and that no specific changes in curriculum beyond the suggestions below are needed.

Observations by the Advisory Board Regarding

 

Strengths:

 

1.                  The faculty of Materials and Metallurgical Engineering Department has taken a strongly proactive approach to improving the department. They addressed most of the major concerns of the AB in our last on site review in 2002 (several teleconferences have been held in the interim).  Two of the five faculty positions are partially endowed with the possibility of becoming fully endowed.  Self assessment rates by recent alumni (for ABET) were extremely high and the overall impression by alumni was that they were well prepared for their careers. The new Samurai Sword Senior Project was laid out in a manner so that all students contributed in different ways to a single goal, much like a company would operate.  Students were able to succeed or fail in their own areas and learn from the experience. The faculty also creatively modified the class schedule such that class sizes could be increased through combining grade levels.  The larger classes produced a stronger and more dynamic teaching environment.

 

2.                  Strong progress in undergraduate student enrollment has been made resulting in the highest levels of enrollment in 18 years.  This is not an accident, but the result of active involvement by the faculty members.  They have added programs and activities to increase student involvement with the department and the materials profession, thereby engendering more student interest.  Some of these programs and activities include:

·        A weekly blacksmithing workshop that is entertaining, but still ties back into the students’ education by linking processing paths to microstructure and properties.

·        A Samurai sword Senior Design Project covering all areas of metallurgy.

·        Integrating the artistic side of Materials Science with the industrial side.  Examples include blacksmithing, glass blowing, jewelry crafting, and copper working.

·        Extra efforts to attract and retain non-traditional students to the metallurgy field (women and minorities) through the WIME program and an NSF REU.

·        Outreach to scientifically oriented high school students with the ASM Materials Camp.

 

3.                  The five teaching and one research faculty members are currently responsible for bringing in over $6.7M of external research funding (17 total awards).  This equates to $1.3M per faculty member – at or near the top for any department within SDSM&T.  They are supervising approximately 15 Masters students and approximately 10 PhD students.  Development and expansion of MS / PhD programs has helped to bring in external funding as well as new equipment.

 

4.                  As already mentioned the enrollment numbers for students in the Materials and Metallurgical Engineering Department are at all time highs.  In addition to the active student recruitment program, the Department has developed a strong scholarship program so that over two-thirds of the undergraduate students receive some form of scholarship stipend.  The graduating seniors experience a high placement rate in many types of industries and research facilities both regionally and nationally.  Additionally a significant portion of the students progress on to graduate level programs (1 in 3 goes on) with approximately 40 % enrolling outside of SDSM&T.  The graduating students are of a high caliber and are in demand due to strong technical backgrounds and good work ethics.

 

 

Opportunities and Concerns:

 

1.                  The Department continues to have a focus on traditional metallurgy.  This is both a strength and a weakness.  Very few schools still produce students who can go into a traditional metallurgical operation and not require significant on the job training.  On the hand, the world of Materials Science is much larger than it used to be (ceramics, biomaterials, polymers, electronic materials, composites, etc.) and training in other areas might open doors for the students.  Perhaps one or two survey classes could be a partial remedy.

 

2.                  Dr. Howard is nearing retirement.  It is critical that the proper replacement be found for him and that this transition proceeds as smoothly as possible.

 

3.                  As the number of research projects within the Department has increased, the need for project management tools has become critical.  Examples of information that need to be collected and tracked for the multiple projects includes:  PI and researcher hours, purchases and expenses, and progress to goals.  Outside assistance has been offered.

 

4.                  Some class space, laboratories, and offices need infrastructure upgrades and repair to meet current standards.  There have been some new additions of equipment to the Departmental laboratories in recent years, but not a lot of change.  While expensive and difficult to do, the faculty and school need to ensure that laboratories are current so the students can be adequately prepared for future jobs or additional training at research universities.

 

5.                  The Department should find more opportunities for students to work in summer or co-op jobs to gain experience.  This is an area where alumni and other contacts could be used beneficially.

 

6.                  Faculty numbers are still low for the number of enrolled students and the level of research funding being performed.  Many MSE departments have student to faculty ratios of about 12 : 1.  This department is 16 : 1.  With five faculty members, the department is always just one step away from a dilemma should a member be lost.  Adding another faculty member with the correct skill set could also be a method to broaden the department’s range of abilities and class offerings.