Department of Electronics and Electrical Engineering Minutes of Staff/Student Committee Meeting with subsequent staff replies.

9th November 2005 Present: Prof. John OReilly (Convenor), Dr. Jeremy Watling (Secretary), Prof. Charlie Ironside, Ross Luescher, Alan Robinson, Gautam Agarwal and David Rankin Apologies: Ross Feilen and Prof. Richard De La Rue

Convenors Business: Prof. John OReilly welcomed everyone, especially the new members, to the first staff/student meeting of this academic year and explained the important role it plays within the department. 1st year: No major problems in general in terms of the lectures. The only issue raised was concerning the Tutorials for Electronics Engineering 1X. Prof. R. De La Rue not only goes through the tutorial solutions with the students, but also hands out hard copies of the solutions. Apparently, Dr. J. Williamson while going through his tutorial problems in some detail does not handout hard copies of the solutions, which the students find very useful for revision etc. The students therefore asked if it would be possible for Dr. J. Williamson to handout hard copies of the solutions at some point in the same style as Prof. R. De La Rue. Reply from Dr. J. Williamson: As the students will by now have noticed, I do in fact, hand out tutorial solutions, and the first of these has already been circulated. The only proviso is that I prefer to wait until feedback has indicated that sufficient time has elapsed that most of the students have had a chance to attempt the tutorial. This is normally several weeks after the tutorial has been circulated. 2nd year: Unfortunately no 2nd year representative was present. 3rd year: Unfortunately no 3rd year representative was present. 4th year: One concern that was raised was the issue of timetabling clashes for 4th year options. Two particular clashes were raised, there is a timetabling clash between Digital Communication 4 and VLSI Design 4, this particular clash was reported to affect at least 6 people. A clash between Bioelectronics 4 and Microwave, Electronic and Optoelectronic Devices 4 was also reported this clash appears to have arisen for some students as apparently Microwave, Electronic and Optoelectronic Devices 4 was originally time-tabled in the Green Handbook to take place in Semester 1, but is now taking place in Semester 2. Prof. John O Reilly explained that with 11 4th year options available, there were timetabling constraints. There was however some scope to re-visit 4th year options in year 5. Some students were also concerned that two courses had been dropped for this year: Electronic Circuit Design 4 and Control EE5, there was also some concern that

choosing 4th year options again in the 5th year, would mean that 5th year would just become a repeat of 4th year. Prof. John O Reilly explained in some detail that a major aim of the new structure for the 5th year was to give students an appreciation of the broader view of Electrical Engineering and in no way was it meant to be a repeat of 4th year. He is also mentioned that the cancellation of Electronic Circuit Design 4 was due to an ongoing review of the 4th year curriculum coinciding with the early retirement of Prof. J. Sewell. It was felt that there was perhaps a little too much jumping around between topics, with no apparent coherent approach that the students could see in Control EE4 by Dr. Y. Li and that in some cases it was difficult to understand what the lecturer was saying in the lectures. However, the printed lecture notes were excellent and the students wished it to be known that on a personal level the lecturer was very approachable and could explain issues. Reply from Dr. Y. Li: Due to the reduction of Control 3 contents from 20 credits to 10 credits since last year, the lecturer had to fill in the background material on Nyquist criterion from this year. However, since half of the class (students from Mechanical Engineering Department) did Nyquist in their third year, this material had to be mainly to "fill in the background" and was hence delivered relatively fast. It was discovered later that, as they did not take Instrumentation 3 in Mechanical Engineering, students doing the Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering joint degree did not have any background on Bode plots (or on any frequency-domain analysis, which is the foundation of three quarters of Control 4), the lecturer had then to fill in this background as well and its delivery was relatively fast due to time limitations. With some students' lack of background fully understood, it is felt that Bode and Nyquist plots will have to become a mainstream part of Control 4 syllabus from the next year onwards, although this means that the standards of this fourth-year course will have to be more accommodating. The material will thus be delivered in a more systematic manner and more slowly. Being the Fourth Year Coordinator and Careers Contact for the Department, the lecturer wished to enhance fourth-year student's real-world problem solving skills. Therefore, the lecturer felt a need to challenge the students with real-world problems, and not just to derive pure mathematical equations in the lectures. Hence the lecturer did not mechanistically follow materials handed out, but also talked about physical meanings of control engineering mathematics and strongly encouraged students to think beyond mathematical equations or nice academic boxes. This is to encourage real analytical skills and is hence more challenging than just following pure derivations, but will prove to be fruitful in students' careers. There was also a question about how the marks from Professional Issues 4, would be accounted for. This course is a compulsory Computing Science requirement and therefore affects all our Joint Honours students with Computing Science. In previous years the mark from this course had been taken as part of students Final Year Individual Project Mark, but this year Computing Science have made this a stand alone course with its own written examination 40% and course work 60%. The

students affected were therefore concerned about what would happen to the marks this year, they had enquired within Computing Science and ECS coordinator Dr Macauley, but they as yet have been unable to help. Reply from Dr. M. Macauley: The two departments have agreed that joint honours ESE students (whether they are based in Science Faculty or Engineering Faculty) will have their overall 4th year mark or grade computed by taking a credit weighted average of their marks or grades. This is what is currently done for single honours Electronics and Electrical Engineering students, but not what is done for ESE students or for single honours Computing Science students. Professional Issues 4 will be a stand-alone 10 credit course, and the project will be *weighted at 40 credits whether it done in Computing Science or in E&EE* i.e. joint honours ESE projects are rated differently from single honours Computing Science projects, which have been changed this year to have 30 credits. One small issue was raised about VLSI Design 4, in some cases it was difficult to read and understand the handwriting on the board of the lecturer for the Analogue part of this course. However, the students did comment that the lecturer concerned did produce comprehensive hard copy of the notes at the beginning of each lecture. No problems were reported for the Digital part of this course. Reply from Dr. E.Wasige: I note the concerns raised by the students and will take the necessary action. Just for your information, I often write in shorthand/unclearly just to provoke some response if the class are not attentive, and this works! Also, students are advised to make notes in their own words during the lecture ... what I write on the board is not meant to be copied blindly, and they know this. Some students felt that the course Mathematics E4 was perhaps a little too theoretical (pure) in its approach, rather than perhaps the more applied approach that Engineering Students might prefer, and would have been used to from earlier year Mathematics courses taught within our own department. Apparently no possible applications for the mathematics they were learning had been explained too them. Professor John OReilly did however point out that Mathematics E4 was an optional course for the most mathematically able and it was to be expected that engineering applications might be at postgraduate level. Reply from Dr. F. Goldman (Mathematics): It is an abstract course. I emphasise this at the start and the syllabus indicates it. Part of the problem is that it is a mathematics course, so the basics, which used to be taught much earlier, have to be put in place before I can move on to infinite dimensions and Hilbert space. I think the syllabus does need reform, because of the changes in what is taught in engineering. However, as the syllabus originated with the engineering departments, it needs reform in consultation with them, and though I have tried on several occasions in the past, it has never come together.

It was felt that Team Project EE4 was a little disorganised this year, particular in terms of division and distribution of work. The students were most concerned about the fact that they had only just received a formal set of specifications for the project, while a formal report for Team Project EE4 was due on the 2nd December 2005. Reply from Dr. D. Muir: The student is indeed confused. He is confusing the Team Management 4 (which is wanting an assignment in by Dec 2nd) with Team Project 4. Admittedly these run together this term and are to some extent interlocked. I have tried (Team Project 4) to keep us out of the way of Management 4 as far as possible. As far as specifications are concerned, Team management 4 I am sure will have dealt with that very properly (that is their job!). As far as Team project 4 is concerned this term the task for the teams is to COME UP WITH decent specifications which are then to be built in the next term. The directions for the teams were indeed vague. Researching, considering, planning, sketching all are part of this initial phase of the team project. Ultimately, having acquired all the necessary background knowledge the teams can arrive at a specification that is meaningful and attainable. It is part of their professional development for them to do so. Given the high quality of the MEng students, to have given the teams complete and constraining specifications would surely have insulted their abilities! The last comment that was made concerned the apparent high non-technical content of the MEng. Course which contained courses on Entrepreneurship, Professional Issues and Managerial skills and were these being introduced at the expense of more technically orientated subjects. Profs. John OReilly and Charlie Ironside explained that this was not the case and that the inclusion of such courses was a requirement of IEE accreditation, which was vital for any successful electrical engineer. It was also explained that such professional skills were becoming more important as increasing numbers of skilled engineers were taking on more senior management roles in companies, which involved detailed knowledge not only of the technical aspects of the company, but also the management (both personnel and financial) of companies.