The TAM Response to the College of Engineering Reorganization Proposal

1
The TAM Response to the College of Engineering
Reorganization Proposal
Nancy R.Sottos Interim Head, Department of
Theoretical Applied Mechanics Donald Biggar
Willett Professor of Engineering Co-chair, MENS
Research Theme, Beckman Institute
2
Position on the Proposed Merger
The College of Engineering and its students are
best served by an independent mechanics
Department.
3
Some Background on TAM
TAM has a 115 year legacy of teaching and
research excellence in mechanics. It is one of
the best known departments in the College. The
overall impact of the TAM faculty and alumni
produced over all these years is extraordinary
and undeniable. Prior to 2005 TAM was the
"Powerhouse in Mechanics" in the U.S. and had
significant influence on the current mechanics
activities across the College of Engineering at
Illinois. TAM has a first rate graduate
program and produces the highest number of PhD
students per faculty member in the mechanical
sciences. This program is a jewel and the envy
of many of our peer institutions. TAM has a
vibrant undergraduate program that has been
building over the past five years. The program
emphasizes fundamentals, research and graduate
studies. TAM provides service teaching for
nearly 2500 undergraduates each academic year
(513 IU/per faculty). TAM places great value on
its service teaching mission and had developed a
culture to support this mission.
4
Key Arguments Against Merger

• 1. Negative impact on mechanics education in
  both undergraduate programs/service teaching and
  graduate programs for AE, AgE, CE, EM, GE, IE,
  MatSE and ME.
• Increased duplication of mechanics faculty and
  teaching efforts, no coordinating or service
  structure across departments. No cost savings
  will be achieved.
• 3. Negative impact on mechanics related
  research, loss of stature in mechanics,
  long-term loss of fundamental focus.

5
Impact of Merger on Education (1)
A merger will have a negative impact on mechanics
education at both undergraduate programs/service
teaching and graduate programs for AE, AgE, CE,
EM, GE, IE, MatSE and ME.
MIE has already stated the Department cannot
handle the service teaching load. Current
thinking is to divide up the courses among AE,
CE, GE, MatSE and ME . No plan yet exists for
how to handle the teaching there are no
volunteers at this point except for TAM!
Since all the service courses will be taught,
this course of action will have to lead to fewer
grad courses in mechanics being offered. No
discussion of TA lines or TA training for the
service classes.
6
Increased Duplication (2)
A merger will lead to increased duplication of
mechanics faculty and teaching efforts. Little
or no cost savings will be achieved.
If service teaching is divided between
departments, these units will have to maintain or
hire faculty in mechanics, train graduate
students, and provide discussion sections and
study halls to cover the classes. No
structure is being proposed to coordinate/facilita
te mechanics activity across units. Will MechSE
be able to serve other units as TAM does -
especially at the graduate level?
7
Impact on Research (3)
A merger is already having and will continue to
have a negative impact on mechanics related
research across the College of Engineering.


Losses in fluid mechanics, computational
science, applied math (e.g. of total J.
Fluid Mechanics articles for faculty dropped from
242 to 94) Loss of focus (critical mass) on
fundamental research in mechanics Shift in
balance between fundamental and applied mechanics
research Ability to compete for another ASCI
like center
8
The Case for TAM
The existence of a TAM Department ensures that
The degree programs are maintained to current
standards of excellence. There are sufficient
resources for mechanics education (e.g. faculty,
labs, staff, TAs) with minimal duplication
between Departments. There is a healthy
balance in the mechanics-based disciplines
between applications and fundamentals across the
College. The current interdisciplinary,
cross-departmental approach to mechanics is
preserved. A visible mechanics program at the
forefront of research in mechanics.
9
Merger is NOT the only Option
The resources needed to rebuild TAM are small and
it would not be difficult. In fact, it has been
far more costly tearing down TAM and trying to
rebuild it in ME.
The TAM Department currently has five open
lines (3 promised in writing by Dean Daniel,
Kimberly Hill's position, and Head) The
College has acknowledged the critical need to
replace the TAM faculty who have left recently
Moser, Hill, Fried, Balachandar, Aref, .
10
TAM Plan to Rebuild
We would like to be a STABLE faculty of 15
Slightly smaller than our pre-merger 18, but we
can run efficiently as a meaner and leaner
unit. Our plan to rebuild is simple hire two
faculty in 2006 and start Head search, hire two
additional faculty in 2007, and two faculty in
2008. This requires return of only two more
lines to TAM. An independent Department has
always been a strong recruiting tool. We will
NOT duplicate hiring efforts in ME. Faculty
areas associated with the recent transfers ( e.g.
plasticity) will not be rebuilt. We will
continue to grow our undergraduate program.
We will maintain the core of our outstanding
graduate curriculum with updates to reflect new
hiring areas and areas now more effectively
covered by ME.
11
Summary
TAM wants to rebuild and continue its legacy
in mechanics research and education.
Rebuilding TAM requires only a small effort and
little investment by the COE. It is
unlikely a distinct mechanics program will be
sustained in the new MechSE Department. All
other mergers have failed in this, e.g. Stanford,
Michigan, Ga Tech. The loss of TAM will hurt
the reputation of the College, lead to additional
costs, duplications and a loss of emphasis on
fundamental engineering science.