Paper ID #38749Transforming Engineering Economy into a Two-Credit CourseDr. Kate D. Abel, Stevens Institute of Technology (School of Engineering and Science) Kate Abel is the Director of the Undergraduate Engineering Management (EM) and the Industrial and Systems Engineering (ISE) Programs at the School of Systems and Enterprises. She holds a Ph.D. in Technology Management and Applied Psychology. She is a Fellow in ASEM. She has held several pro- fessional service positions including President (2006) and Program Chair (2005) of the Engineering Man- agement Division of the American Society for Engineering Education and
Paper ID #38133Course Strategy: Threading Triple Bottom-Line Sustainability AcrossMultiple CoursesDr. Daniel B. Oerther, Missouri University of Science and Technology Professor Daniel B. Oerther, PhD, PE joined the faculty of the Missouri University of Science and Tech- nology in 2010 as the John A. and Susan Mathes Chair of Civil Engineering after serving ten years on the faculty of the University of Cincinnati where he was the head of the Department of Civil and Environ- mental Engineering. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2023 Course Strategy: Threading Triple Bottom Line
one component in attractingstudents to the profession, and has been identified as important in increasing the representationof women [16]. Engineering Economics provides an excellent venue for students to learn aboutthe social and economic benefits of technology. Internet enabled microfinance is one example.The concept of a class making microenterprise loans was inspired by university finance classesthe author heard about in which students invested $1000 (many years ago) in the stock marketand managed a portfolio.The initial goal for this project was for the students to gain a good understanding ofmicrofinance, especially as an example of a business activity that alleviates poverty. Ultimately Iwant them to think about how they can use their
reporting of fields of study andprogram completions. “Engineering/Industrial Management” was moved in 2000 from CIP 14(Engineering) to CIP 15 (Engineering-related Technologies/Technicians). In so doing, the federalgovernment changed engineering management from an Engineering field of study to anEngineering Technology field.The fact that this change occurred in 2000 is well documented. What is not available is why thechange was made. There are several important reasons that the engineering managementcommunity should attempt to reverse this change. This paper explores a strategy for how torequest and influence a return to CIP 14. Making the change will not be easy.We recommend the return of most engineering management programs to CIP 14.3001, the pre
economy is not a requiredcourse for any engineering major at this university, but a junior level engineering economy courseis offered as an elective by a graduate program in the engineering management and systemsengineering department. This project is a part of a two credit-hour course in exploration ofengineering and technology, and it, through this project, provides the only exposure to engineeringeconomy for most of the graduates. Students used an imaginary sum of $10,000 in making short-term investments in a mixture of stocks and a savings account. They learned how to calculateeffective annual return using three methods: manual calculation, programing with MS Excel, andan on-line rate of return calculator.IntroductionTime value of money (TVM
of the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology(ABET), the stakeholders of the quality assurance in engineering education have beendiversified. Especially, different stakeholders involve the quality assurance inengineering education with different attitudes and behaviors. Engineering educationstakeholders have formed different groups representing different powers. It will helpto optimize internal quality assurance mechanisms by exploring stakeholders. Thus,this research takes Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI) as a case to study the powerof quality assurance in engineering education from the perspective of StakeholderTheory. The findings indicate that engineering education stakeholders have formedthree main bodies representing