Penn State Wilkes Barre
Surveying Industrial Advisory Committee Meeting (IAC)
October 29, 2002

The meeting came to order at approximately 11:10 a.m.

A list of current members of the IAC was distributed and is attached as part of these minutes. Chair Hoover shall prepare and send letters to Mr. Emerson Bornman, Mr. Richard Malikowski, and Mr. John Seamans notifying them that no more than two consecutive meetings shall be missed. The letter shall also request their intention with regard to continuing to serve on the committee.

Confirmation of group e-mail shall include all members per the attached list or as updated and available through Chuck or the website.

An exit interview summary was distributed and reviewed by Chuck. A copy of the interview is attached noting that a score of “5" is the highest or best and a score of “1" is the lowest or poorest rating.

Employer’s evaluation of student preparedness:

Chuck provided the committee with a brief overview, reporting that he received three responses from employers who recently hired graduates of the baccalaureate program, and their evaluations were good. There was a mixed review from employers that hired two year tech graduates, whereas the employers expected a more expanded diversity in the students, i.e. stormwater management, which is not readily available through the two year program.

ABET accreditation will not be reviewed again until 2007 for the associate degree and 2006 for the baccalaureate degree. Response to the last ABET review comments are due by the end of this year.

Statistics of test results from individuals taking the surveyors exam in correlation with students who graduated from the surveying program at Penn State University do not seem to be available from the state registration board. Is it possible to obtain these statistics from the PSLS exam committee?

Chuck distributed a draft of the ABET Outcomes Assessment Criteria for Penn State Surveying Engineering Program Educational Goals (attached - pdf). Discussion ensued regarding the draft document.

Declining enrollment was broached. Current total enrollment is 49 students. The freshman class shrank from 21 students last year to 12 students this year. Most students enrolled in the two year tech program continue on to the baccalaureate degree program. No current student is from out of state. Suggestions to increase enrollment included the making of a CD-ROM about the surveying program that would include interviews with current students. It was also mentioned that PSLS will be reviving their contacts with high schools to deliver the opportunities of surveying as a profession. It was noted that overall enrollment of adjoining colleges seems to be higher, however there may be demographic reasons effecting enrollment at Penn State WB campus. Also, there is quite a bit of competition from other universities with surveying programs outside of Pennsylvania. To date there are 56 potential candidates interested in the surveying program for enrollment next year.

Fayette County PSU campus has expressed interest in PIC-TEL courses. Chuck is evaluating the possibility of making that available, however lab work with up to date available equipment would be an issue due to cost and hands on instruction.

The new Director of Administration, Dr. Martin Slann, introduced himself before lunch.

Lunch included chicken pasta salad, bread, rolls, soft drinks, cake and cookies, but no pizza.

During lunch, and in only the presence of the committee (excluding faculty), four graduating students, two from each of the programs, shared their experiences and concerns regarding the program and the campus. Three of students have jobs lined up after graduation and the fourth student is contemplating returning to the four year program. All of the students agreed that the program was very strong, professors were very accessible and equipment was satisfactory. When asked if the program might be more successful located elsewhere, they felt that the program would loose its integrity in a different environment and the advantage of the accessibility to professors was of significant importance. Again there was grumbling about the math professors. Also, for the most part, there is no social life on the campus. At times, the software programs would have conflicts while running coincidental to other software programs on campus which would either prohibit access into the program, or significantly slow down the operation of the program. Access to lab time, outside of class, became difficult at times for some of the more specific programs, i.e. GIS. Some of the students noted that because of difficulties in the presentation of some of the math classes, several students would go out of their way to take required math courses on other campuses. The students praised Mr. Pethic for his ability to communicate, assist and tutor students outside of the classroom. The library was not a significant tool in the program. One student expressed he that only visited the library six times in four years while others expressed it was sometimes used just as a study area because it is quiet. None of the students knew about the surveying program prior to graduating from high school as they all shared how they “stumbled” onto the program via their friends or their own research into programs offered. The suggestion of a graduate degree program from the students hinted that they would consider a graduate degree. The students mentioned that they are preparing a mailing to high schools about the surveying curriculum at Penn State University. The students questioned their involvement in the completion of SRTE evaluations at the end of each semester, as they did not feel their input was resulting in any changes.

After lunch, Chuck returned to the meeting and the students were thanked for their participation and candor for the benefit of the program. Student concerns, most of which he was aware of, were reiterated to Chuck.

Dr. Mary Hines joined the IAC meeting from 2:00 until 3:00, at which time she was informed of the student comments. Dr. Hines did inform us that they are seeking solutions or improvements to the math program and that the program will be re-evaluated. She did mention, however that the professors are very qualified mathematicians, and that while the communication skills of some of the professors may be less effective with some students, others do quite well in those classes. The tutoring may be expanded to strengthen the program. Suggestions to increase enrollment at WB were presented to Dr. Hines, as she also was very concerned about the enrollment. The graduate program was discussed as a possibility, and the seed was planted as to maybe finding a way to make this a possibility at the campus. The committee expressed their thanks to Dr. Hines for retaining Dr. Ghilani at WB. Dr. Hines thought there could be a response to the students on their evaluation of the SRTE and explain to the students the importance of the SRTE and how it is used to evaluate the performance of particular individuals. Dr. Hines thought there could be a general communication to the students.

Dr. Hines invited us to visit the new cafeteria that, in the past, had been a concern of student life on campus.

The next meeting is scheduled for April 8, 2003 at 10:30 a.m. at the Center for Technology Building, Room 7. The committee will be part of a panel presentation to the students later in the day, approximately noon.

Meeting adjourned at 3:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Douglas A. Kramer, PLS