initiativesthroughout the country and to the growing technical demand of the country’s workforce.High School Initiatives and Inadequacy of the Common CoreMany states are looking closely at the specific learning outcomes of high school courses and anengineering economics course in college general education integrates well with these efforts.For example, Virginia has a policy for all public high school students to pass a Financial Literacycourse prior to high school graduation33. The topical coverage of this course links directly to acollege course in engineering economics due to an emphasis on decision making with the timevalue of money concept for individual decisions (e.g., obtaining a loan, developing a personalbudget, implications of a simple contract). The
Engineering Disciplines Brian Aufderheide1, Otsebele E. Nare1 1 Hampton University, USAAbstractThis is a Work in Progress. Students are taught how to model, write, and solve engineeringequations as part of their typical curriculum. But what is not covered is how to meld theengineering design world with the economic domain needed to be successful in industry. Oneauthor has supervised over 35 industrial design projects, and through his experience found thatwhat industry values most is a detailed Financial Operational Model with clear design andeconomic parameters evaluated through sensitivity analysis. At Hampton University
face of applicable constraints and requirements wherein subjective judgement is given the position of prominence (Section VI). 7) Identify system design examples with generic characteristics that may be used to leverage the utilization of Engineering Economy at the system level, EE@SL (e.g., REPS - Section VII). Engineering Economy as currently taught and practiced is judged to be inadequate for the system- level involvement promulgated in this paper. Advancing EE@SL would be significantly enabled by: 1) Economic Theory, suggested to be as in Human Action.12 Start with a no cost subscription through the von Mises Institute, articles@mesis.org. 2) Organization Theory, humankind’s most important
as shown in Figure 1 [8]. State aid to public universities and grant aid to studentshas generally been declining since 2001 [10], [8]. This reduction in aid, along with an increase incosts associated with attending a university, has increased the financial burden on students andtheir parents [10].Figure 1: Public FTE Enrollment and Educational Appropriations per FTE, U.S., FY 1991-2016 [8]Student DebtUnfortunately, students find that it is easy to accumulate debt [2]. The amount of debt isstaggering, student loan debt currently exceeds credit card debt and auto loans and is closing inon home mortgages debt as one of the top debts in the US [1]. A method for monitoring studentdebt is the 10% rule
and self-efficacy. This course is required for all industrial engineering studentsand is used as a technical elective by students in other majors. Our study used a single casedesign8 recommended by the Department of Education, which does not require a control groupbecause it focuses on the assessment of student understanding before and after an instructionalintervention. The study was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB).For the self-efficacy survey, 10 statements were included based on the General Self-EfficacyScale of Schwarzer and Jerusalem,9 using a Likert scale of 1 to 4. The first part of the survey (upto Question A) is given in Part A.The pre- and post-test questions (Part B) were constructed to address
to Anheuser-Busch where she worked for over 27 years. She worked as project manager, engineering manager, utility manager, maintenance manager, and finally as the Resident Engineer managing all technical areas of the facility. During her tenure, the brewery saw dramatic increases in productivity improvement, increased use of automation systems, and significant cost reductions in all areas including utilities where they received the internal award for having the best utility usage reduction for 2014. Since joining Ohio State, Aimee has joined the American Society of Engineering Educators and serves as the Division Chair of the Engineering Economics division.Mehdi Mashayekhi, Ohio State UniversityHannah Meckstroth, Ohio
. Lavelle [1] performed an early survey exploringhow engineering economy is taught. This was extended by Lavelle, Needy, and Nachtmann [2].Nachtmann, Needy, Lavelle, and Eschenbach [3] performed a further analysis of the data fromthe expanded survey. Lastly, Nachtmann, Needy and Evans [4] provided a refresher survey onthe standing of the engineering economy classroom.Schmahl, et al. [5] explored textbooks, investigating what percent of problems are actuallyengineering (vs. finance) in context. Hartman [6] described the use of the Wall Street Journal tosupplement the course with relevant news articles. Ristroph and Glassinger [7] updated tax lawchanges as they apply to engineering projects. Sullivan and Terpenny [8] emphasized the needfor after-tax
to invest time in preparing their“cheat-sheet” for a variety of reasons and strategies, which correspondingly demonstrate a rangeof outcomes. The factors for these decisions are discussed and outcomes are reported.1 IntroductionOver many years researchers, largely in the field of psychology, have studied the benefits ofusing reference materials in the examination setting with respect to performance, knowledgeacquisition and knowledge retention [1-4]. Although some researcher findings have not beensupportive [5-7], a general consensus has not been formed on the practice due in large part to thediffering examination formats, topics and contexts. As a result, course instructors are often leftto debate whether the allowance of self-made
considerations that stem from financial decision-making. Although notstrictly by design, the early delivery aligns well with the designated course textbook [6]. Themodule is comprised of the five components summarized in Table 1, and the individualcomponents of the module are described in more detail in the paragraphs ahead. The majority ofthe lesson content was drawn from general ethical concepts and ideas as described inEngineering Ethics, Concepts & Cases by Harris, Pritchard, and Rabins [7].The learning module opens with a survey administered via a physical handout. The intent of thesurvey is not data collection, but rather to give students the opportunity to reflect on their priorexperience with ethics instruction in their degree program and to
, and corporate sponsors and speakers. NOBE also hosts an annualStock Market competition for its members17.Penn State University Park NOBE InitiativesThe NOBE chapter at Penn State University Park grew out of the engineering economy coursewithin industrial engineering. The NOBE students embraced the curriculum overhaul in theengineering economy course and volunteered their time to work with the incoming engineeringeconomy students in an effort to help them understand the importance of developing essentialbusiness skills to complement their technical, engineering education. The complete, updatedengineering economy curriculum can be found in Table A.1 in the Appendix.Engineering Economy Curriculum Overhaul, Stock CompetitionThe complete
environment) to an active, individually accountable learner. Students are presented witha wide variety of tools to access content and practice skills, complemented with a wealth of on-demand online and “human” support. Instructional design strategies and resources will bediscussed in more detail further in this paper. Most students accepted the message that they canbe successful and will receive the help they need to do so. A general shift in the attitudes aboutclassroom seat time has also occurred, possibly due in part to the course design. Since the pilotoffering, the percentage of enrolled students electing to attend live classroom sessions hasprogressively decreased. The reasons for this shift are likely numerous and complex, but the endresult is
a member of ASM International, TMS, ACerS, AIST, ASEE, and a registered Chartered Professional Engineer. Dr. Manohar’s research interests include mathematical and computer modeling of materials behavior, thermo-mechanical processing of steels and other metallic materials, microstructural characterization, and structure – property relationships. He has conducted a number of technical failure investigations, consulted on various materials-related problems, and acted as an expert witness in the Court of Law. Dr. Manohar is the past chair of the Manufacturing Division of ASEE and ASM Pittsburgh Chapter.Capt. Fahad Saad Almutairi , King Fahd Security College Capt. Eng. Fahad Almutairi lecturer, King Fahd Security
fromboth the individual perspective [7] and the couple’s perspective [8].Student Make-upThe course included 22 students, eight of which had an undergraduate engineering degree andworked in an engineering or technical capacity. Approximately half of the students took thecourse to satisfy an elective requirement without regard to the course topic (i.e., it fit theirschedule), and the other half took the course to satisfy credits towards the EngineeringManagement concentration of the MBA program.Course StructureThe course included 14 sessions, 11 face-to-face and 3 online. The sessions were approximately2.75 hours each and the course met two or three times per week. The topical coverage of thosesessions consisted of the following, in order: 1. Time
toreinforce and improve the understanding of fundamental principles of Engineering Economicsthrough the use of the smart phone apps outside the classroom individually or collaboratively.The example topics include time value of money, cash flow modeling, applications of interestrates, decision making, effects of taxes and depreciation. The current app consists of 5 tabs/sections: E-Book: This is an E-Book consisting of several sections of key notes relevant to materials covered in this course (Figure 1). Calculator: This consists of 10 calculators specific to different types of common problems (Figure 2). Tables: This can generate interactive reference tables. Once the user enters the
notes provided, identical homework assignments, consistentweekly topical schedule, textbook, and online quizzes using a lockdown browser (Respondus).The primary difference was that the face to face section had a live lecture and the online sectionhad specifically made videos produced with Camtasia screen capture software.In general, most weeks covered one chapter in the text. The general sequence of activitiesinvolved: Coverage of course topics either by lecture or by video using consistent power point slides. Figure 1 provides a screen capture of a typical video. For the online section, Centra chat / white board sessions were held on Tuesday and Wednesday. An example screen capture is shown in Figure 2. These sessions
(1 + 𝑖)! 𝑠= 𝑁Equation 2: Cashflow from assets is equal to earning plus interest expense CA=CL+CEEquation 3: General account equation A=L+EEquation 4: Relationship between cashflow, value, and return !! 𝑖 ! = , 𝑛 = ∞ (also true for E and L subscripts) ! s :Stock Price ($/shr) N: number of shares n: life (years) A: Total Assets ($) L: Long Term Liabilities ($) E Total Equity
University of Missouri System and earned a Faculty Achievement Award for teaching. American c Society for Engineering Education, 2021 Curriculum Element: Economic Analysis Group Project Utilizing VoiceThreadObjectives:The curriculum element discussed may be implemented in an undergraduate or graduate levelengineering economics course. With sufficient instructor and/or TA support, the project may beimplemented with any class size. The primary objective of this project is to provide students theopportunity to 1) evaluate project(s) using a systematic economic analysis technique, 2) supporttheir recommended alternative with data, and 3
Paper ID #34185Curriculum Element: Using the Wall Street Journal to Provide Nationaland Global Perspectives in an Engineering Economy CourseDr. James Burns, Western Michigan University Jim Burns, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Industrial and Entrepreneurial Engineering and Engineering Man- agement Department Bio: Jim Burns holds a Ph.D. in Industrial Engineering from Western Michigan University, and has more than 10 years industry experience in the manufacturing sector in a variety of roles including process engineering, operations management, and technical sales. His area of expertise centers on applying OR/MS and Simulation
, Peter Diamond, Jonathan Gruber, and Alain Jousten, “Delays in Claiming Social Security Benefits,” Journal of Public Economics, 84(2002), 357-385.8. Friedman, Joseph, and Herbert E. Phillips, “The Downside Risk of Postponing Social Security Benefits,” Financial Services Review, 19 (2010), 285-2949. Feldstein, Martin, “Social Security, Induced Retirement, and Aggregate Capital Accumulation,” The Journal of Political Economy, 82(5) (Sept-Oct 1974), 905-926.10. Boskin, Michael J., Laurence J. Kotlikoff, Douglas J. Puffert, and John B. Shoven, “Social Security: A Financial Appraisal Across and Within Generations,” National Tax Journal, 40(1) (March 1987), 19-34.11. Fraser, Steve P., William W. Jennings, and David R
of the pandemic on past results.IntroductionThe U.S. Social Security (SS) program is one of the largest government programs in the world,ranking as the largest expenditure at 23% of the federal budget in Fiscal 2019 [1]. About 81% ofexpenditures of the Social Security Administration (SSA) went towards retirement benefits inFiscal 2019 [2]. The literature on SS is correspondingly vast. However, the literature on the“when to start” decision usually ignores the time value of money and addresses risk onlyqualitatively. This paper will show how a student engineering economic case study can do better.Unlike a supplied case, this is a real-world problem. Information is available from many possiblesources. Detailed rules must be read and understood
toward requirements. 1 A1 4% - Emphasis on generating correct cash flows, the presence of 1-2 Weeks Hour programming loops and a table of results. - Model is complete and code utilizes loops, variables, and 1 parameters to control the operation of the model. - Output matches expected results. 45 A2 5
reasons behind their choices. They werealso asked to indicate the topic for their research paper, and the most important thing theylearned from it. The survey is included at the end of this paper. The survey was taken in Fall2016 for the readings and topics used that semester, and completed by 19 students. The resultsare in Tables 1 - 2. In general, the students preferred the material that was more technical, ormore aligned with engineering. In their explanations they also expressed a strong interest inactions that benefitted others.Table 1: Best and Worst Readings Woman not India Pittron Tata Nano Intimidated Inventors Steel Tom Bloch None Most Favorite Reading
identified as well. When asked about what mayhave inhibited their performance on the concept inventory at the end of the semester, somestudents indicated a general sense of being overworked and overwhelmed at that point in thesemester, which may mean some students under-achieved on the concept inventory relative tohow they could have scored in the absence of the last minute projects, assignments, andcramming that often accompanies that time of the semester. Table 2 – Summary of student performance on concept inventory. Spring 2016 - INST 1 Fall 2016 - INST 2 % of % of Question Students
the last decade of The Engineering Economist and proceedings from theengineering economy divisions of ASEE and ISERC and found no papers on personal finance asa topical area. We searched more deeply within the ASEE proceedings, because those papersfocus on education and because presentation-only talks are rare. From 1996 to 2016 there were33 papers on peer.asee.org searched under a “personal finance” search, but only 6 are identifiedwith the engineering economy division—none focus on personal finance. Mutter (2011) is onpen-based tablet technology. Wick, Lynch, and Kauffmann (2014) is on using engineeringeconomy as a general education course. Ghanat et al. (2015) is on active learning. Lynch, Bober,and Wilck (2015) is on business expertise
computer usage allowed by the student, unlimited computerusage by the student, and usage where the tablet is limited to being kept on the desktop.This study analyzed just one course in one single academic term taught the same waywith the same materials and rubrics in different sections, but using the three variedcomputer modes just outlined as comparisons. The study found that student academicachievement was better in the mode when technology was not allowed in the classroom.The above referenced study took place at West Point. However, West Point is not like atraditional college campus, and some might even call it unique. As such, some may saythat the findings of the West Point/MIT study might not apply to the generalized collegeenvironment
its equipment. Alsostressed was setting up the cost analysis so all inputs were identified and entered once and onlyonce to enable the student to revise the analysis as new information was discovered withoutsearching through each calculation to change the inputs.The third step was to generate a time-cost profile for removing and replacing the street lightheads. Two situations were considered, 1) replacing the existing street light heads with similarsodium vapor heads and 2) replacing the existing street light heads with LED heads. Theconcept of fitting the remove and replace schedule into the annual budget of the city wasdiscussed and investigated to see the effect on the city-wide project if removal and replacementwas limited to the expected
completed the projects andgraduated. Often, the students’ cost estimates come back up in the process of the companiesselecting the projects for inclusion in their work load.A topic of discussion with some of our industry partners has been in regards to the economicanalysis students have provided on their projects. Many of the projects showed that our studentsare technically competent to perform the design analysis required for the projects but thestudents’ costs and estimates of the work required have not always been complete. Because theeconomic data from the senior projects was not controlled, two of the junior design courses wereselected to evaluate how the students performed on the economic analysis, both from deciding ondesign criteria as well
Paper ID #17748Work in Progress – An Engineering Economy Concept InventoryDr. Karen M. Bursic, University of Pittsburgh Associate Professor and Undergraduate Program Director for Industrial Engineering at the University of Pittsburgh. She received her B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. degrees in Industrial Engineering from the University of Pittsburgh. Prior to joining the department she worked as a Senior Consultant for Ernst and Young and as an Industrial Engineer for General Motors Corporation. She teaches undergraduate courses in engineering economics, engineering management, and probability and statistics in Industrial Engineering
until this semester (Fall 2016). Figure 1 shows a graphicalrepresentation of mastery learning and assessment. In this study, a variation of the masterylearning and assessment approach is implemented in this course. The Engineering Economycourse is a hybrid in the sense that the mastery learning and assessment is used in the first thirdof the course where students are required to successfully solve problems before receiving creditfor their work. The pace of the course is led by the instructor. The remaining two thirds of thecourse is taught using the traditional learning and assessment approach where grades are basedon partial credit and no retakes are allowed. Table 1 shows the topics of the EngineeringEconomy course and the portions where
(Appendix C). The panel judges included the course instructor, an invitedinstructor, farm personnel and subject matter experts from the local agricultural experimentstation. The project context and the experience was novel for students in the IE program,therefore we consider the project as non-traditional. This served as a motivational agent toproduce projects with a strong technical foundation, meaningful experience, and highlycreative recommendations.At the end of the course, students had to reflect about their learning and experiences byanswering a series of nine (9) open-ended discussion questions and nine (9) closed surveyquestions, presented in Table 1, with their corresponding instructions. The questionnaire wasdesigned as a self-reflection