Re: 3-2 physics and engineering programs

[Bob LaMontagne <rlamont@POSTOFFICE.PROVIDENCE.EDU>]

We have had exactly the same problem. Every time a new liaison is appointed
at the affiliate school the try to reinvent the wheel to justify their new
position. We constantly have to demonstrate that our courses are of the
same caliber as the affiliate. We have also had some of our core courses
like economics questioned - even though they take two semesters here and
only one at the affiliate.

A 3-2 program is a continual work-in-progress.

Bob at PC

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********

On 9/24/2004 at 4:11 PM Edmiston, Mike wrote:

> We also had a problem that department chairs and deans of engineering
> schools can change, and understandings can get pitched out the window
> when a change occurs.  If you are going to implement a 3-2 plan,
> advertise it, matriculate students, etc., then by the time the students
> get to the engineering school you are already 4 or 5 years down the road
> from when you recruited those students as juniors or seniors in high
> school.  We found that if the engineering school wanted to change
> requirements, they can do it almost immediately.  Then students that are
> already in the stream can get left high and dry.  Be sure the
> engineering school is willing to take students on the current
> understanding for about 4 years after the understanding changes.