The University of Missouri-St. Louis/Washington University Joint Undergraduate Engineering Program was established on December 28, 1992, to offer a high quality undergraduate engineering education to non-traditional students in the St. Louis area by forming a partnership between the two universities. As the only public/private partnership of its type in the nation, the program offers Bachelor of Science degrees in Civil, Mechanical, and Electrical Engineering, and a Minor in Environmental Engineering Science. By every applicable measure of success -- student demand, retention, academic performance, and student satisfaction -- the partnership has achieved a high level of success. As of Fall 1996, there were over 300 students enrolled. Enrollment by minorities is excellent, and enrollment by women is roughly at the national average. Through both quantitative and qualitative analysis, including focus groups and interviews with students, faculty members, administrators from both universities, and a community leader, this paper identifies the most critical factors leading to the success of this partnership between two very different institutions. This exciting partnership has allowed the two universities to work together and accomplish what neither could have done separately.

Recently, engineering educators have focused their attention on the desirability of establishing new engineering programs in the United States, particularly in areas where programs already exist. The debate centers on the very high cost of establishing new programs, when other cost-effective alternatives might be available through partnerships with existing programs. Universities and community colleges are just beginning to experiment with cooperative models. The University of Idaho and Boise State University established a cooperative program (which no longer exists) (1), and the New Jersey Institute of Technology and Burlington Community College have established a cooperative facility (6). Washington University in St. Louis and the University of Missouri-St. Louis provide an example of a unique cooperative program between a public and private university.

Motivation
Under a formal agreement between the University of Missouri-St. Louis and Washington University, the Joint Undergraduate Engineering Program was established on December 28, 1992. The goal is to offer high quality undergraduate engineering degree programs to nontraditional students in the St. Louis area by forming a partnership between two universities, one public and one private. The Joint Program initially offered Bachelor of Science degrees in Electrical and Mechanical Engineering. The Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering and a Minor in Environmental Engineering Science were added in the Winter 1995 semester. In the same semester, a combined degree program with a curriculum leading to bachelor's degrees in civil engineering and in sociology was also added.

This unique arrangement between a public and a private institution of higher education was formed to allow the two universities to work together to expand the opportunities for nontraditional students to earn undergraduate engineering degrees. As the concept of the nontraditional student has evolved over the past years, age has often been the defining characteristic. Most researchers and educators have defined the non-traditional student as one who is 25 years of age or older (2). As many others have done (3), the focus of the Joint Program relied on an expanded concept of "non-traditional" to satisfy the needs of those students who were not only older but were also: unable to leave the area to pursue an undergraduate engineering education, working full-time during the day, bearing substantial financial responsibilities, and returning to higher education to complete engineering studies after a lapse of many years.

For reasons due principally to the limited availability of undergraduate engineering courses in the evening and the high cost of tuition to earn an engineering degree at one of the private universities in the St. Louis region, the option to pursue engineering as a major was not seen as viable by many non-traditional students. Through this partnership, the complementary natures of the two universities have been combined to accomplish what neither could have done separately.

The goal of the Joint Program is consistent with the mission of UM-St. Louis, which is to provide a high quality education to enhance the occupational and professional careers of citizens in the entire region, including minorities and the economically disadvantaged, and to provide a well-trained, sophisticated work force for the St. Louis area. The partnership also continues Washington University's strong tradition of working with a diversity of institutions in education, government, and the private sector; it is also a way for Washington University to share its campus, resources and personnel with the citizens of Missouri. The Joint Program also continues a strong tradition in both institutions of their individual commitments to the community.

Curriculum
Students take their pre-engineering course work in mathematics, physics, chemistry, humanities and social science, and selected elementary engineering subjects at UM-St. Louis (or at area community colleges). Both day and evening classes are offered allowing students to complete thelr pre-engineering course requirements on either a full- or a part-time basis.

The program is dedicated to offering admission to students who can demonstrate a strong likelihood of success in a demanding engineering curriculum. One indication of success in engineering course work is to have completed the pre-engineering curriculum with a cumulative grade point average (GPA) of 2.75, out of a possible 4.00, over all technical courses. Assessing that likelihood for students whose educational backgrounds often span more than a decade can be a challenge and each student is considered individually. Admission to the upper division is granted jointly by UM-St. Louis and Washington University. Students pursue their engineering education by taking the remaining half of their degree programs, consisting of upper-level engineering courses and laboratories, on the campus of Washington University. Washington University engineering faculty members teach these courses in the evenings and on Saturday.

A parallel cooperative education program, administered by the UM-St. Louis Career Planning and Placement Office, is available to students taking upper-division courses. This allows upper-division students, who may have been employed in non-engineering related jobs when they began their studies, to "jump start" their engineering careers by working part-time (20-30 hours per week) during the day in an engineering-related position and completing their engineering course work in the evening and on Saturdays. The upper-division requirements can be completed as quickly as four years, attending classes year-round, in this format. Thus, students in the Joint Program can complete their engineering degrees as quickly as six years past high school graduation, only one year longer than in a traditional cooperative education program.

Students register on the UM-St. Louis campus and pay UM-St. Louis tuition and fees plus an engineering surcharge for all the engineering courses. Currently (1996-97 academic year), the total tuition and fees for engineering courses is $154.70 per semester hour.

All majors must complete the pre-engineering requirements (which include satisfying the UMSt. Louis general education requirements). A total of 68 semester hours is required to satisfy the pre-engineering requirements. In the upper division, all degree candidates must complete the core engineering requirements in addition to their major requirements in civil engineering (CE), electrical engineering (EE), or mechanical engineering (ME).

The core engineering requirements for all three majors include completing the course in Engineering Mathematics with a minimum grade of C; EE and ME majors must also complete the course, Introduction to Electrical Networks, with a minimum grade of C, to be eligible to take the other upper-level engineering courses. The other core courses, which must be completed by all students, are Introduction to Computing, Engineering Communications, Thermodynamics, and Material Science. Students majoring in EE or ME also complete

Controls Systems I and Electrical Laboratory I. This results in core requirements of 27 semester hours for EE and ME majors and 21 semester hours for CE majors.

The remaining upper-level courses consist of the required and elective courses in the major to satisfy the appropriate degree requirements. CE majors need 48 additional semester hours, while ME majors need 42 hours, resulting in a total of 137 semester hours for either degree. EE majors take an additional 36 hours resulting in a total of 131 semester hours. A complete description of the Joint Program degree requirements is provided in the UM-St. Louis Bulletin (4).

Administrative Structure
From the beginning, an important goal of the Joint Program was to minimize the difficulty for students of having to deal with two universities on a routine basis. The goal was to make students feel they were part of a seamless, four-year degree program. The resulting administrative structure was developed to create such an environment.

The overall responsibility for the Joint Prograrn is under the direction of a Dean and Associate Dean at UM-St. Louis. The Dean is also a faculty member and Vice Dean for Academic Affairs in the School of Engineering and Applied Science at Washington University, and the Associate Dean is also a faculty member at UM-St. Louis. They are responsible for overseeing student services to all engineering students, implementing the pre-engineering program at UM-St. Louis, and coordinating the upper-division program at Washington University. Support personnel at UM-St. Louis include an administrative assistant and two pre-engineering advisors: one full-time and one part-time.

Joint Program directors, who are engineering faculty members assigned to this part-time position by the chairs of the three departments at Washington University, are responsible for coordinating and implementing the upper-division degree programs. This includes advising students, scheduling classes, faculty assignments, and the day-to-day interface with the other program directors and administrative personnel. In addition, the Division of Continuing Education in the School of Engineering and Applied Science at Washington University provides centralized student support for all upper-division students.

All academic matters are the responsibility of the department chairs at Washington University in conjunction with the Dean and Associate Dean of the Joint Program. Much of this responsibility is delegated to the three program directors, but those matters requiring approval of the faculty (such as curriculum changes) follow a formal approval procedure. This consists of first receiving a recommendation, either favorable or unfavorable, from the appropriate committee in the engineering department, discussion and approval by the department's faculty, and then forwarding it to the Dean of the Joint Program to recommend the necessary approval of the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, the Curriculum and Instruction Committee and, ultimately, the Senate at UM-St. Louis.

The Joint Program office at UM-St. Louis provides student services for all its majors, as does any other academic unit on the campus. Pre-engineering student experiences are no different from any other student attending UM-St. Louis on either a full- or part-time basis. They meet with one of the pre-engineering advisors to review their programs of study, obtain approvals, or discuss any issues as required. Once a student is accepted into the upper-division, a copy of his or her records is automatically transferred to the appropriate program director at Washington University who serves as the student's advisor for the remainder of the program.

In order to make this transition as smooth as possible, the student normally schedules a time to meet with his or her engineering advisor in the Joint Program office at UM-St. Louis to register for the first upper-division courses. In addition, he or she is given a student handbook and invited to attend an orientation meeting that is held by the Division of Continuing Education in the School of Engineering and Applied Science at Washington University prior to the beginning of each semester. The orientation is intended to familiarize the students with the campus and clarify for them the small variations in policies and procedures between the two campuses. Students are informed of resources that are available to Joint Program students at Washington University.

Students meet with their engineering advisors at Washington University each semester to obtain approval to register for all of their remaining courses and to discuss any problems or issues as required during the semester. Of course, they can continue to use all student services and resources at UM-St. Louis in addition to those available to them at Washington University. In essence, they experience the benefits of student status at both universities.

Students who expect to graduate within a year file an "intent to graduate" form in the Joint Program office at UM-St. Louis. The Associate Dean completes the pre-engineering audit and the appropriate program director completes the upper-division degree audit; students are notified in writing of their status. Once a student completes the remaining requirements, the degree is granted by the University of Missouri.

Student Population
At the beginning of the Fall 1996 semester, there were a total of 302 students enrolled in the Joint Program: 172 students taking pre-engineering courses at UM-St. Louis and 130 taking upper-level courses at Washington University. A breakdown of the ethnic background of these students is shown in Table 1.

Approximately 23 percent of the students are under-represented minorities: almost 17 percent are African-Americans and 6 percent are other minorities (Asian-Americans are considered an under-represented minority at UM-St. Louis). This compares to a national average undergraduate engineering enrollment (for Fall 1995) of 23 percent for under-represented minorities and 8 percent for African American. (These national percentages were determined using data for CE, EE and ME majors only).

Tables 2 and 3 provide distributions of the student population by gender. About 20 percent of the students are female, compared to a national average of 14 percent in the three majors we offer. In relative terms, about twice as many females are enrolled in pre-engineering.

Table 3 provides a further breakdown of gender by ethnic background. Overall, about 20 percent of the students in the program are women, but about 28 percent of the African-American students are female. This compares to 19 percent for the other minorities and 17 percent for non-minorities.

Values of the average age of students are provided in Table 4 below. With the exception of Asian-American students, female students are younger than their male counterparts.

Several quantitative measures provide indications of the success of the Joint Program, including student demand and enrollment growth rate, student retention rate, number of graduates, students' performance in courses, and the results of student satisfaction surveys.

Student Demand and Enrollment Growth

One measure of the success of the Joint Program is student demand, which can be measured by enrollment growth. The Joint Program has experienced significant growth as shown in Table 5 which lists the total number of students enrolled in pre-engineering and upper-level course work during each Fall Semester from 1993 through 1996. Enrollments have grown by nearly 175 percent since Fall 1993.

Student Performance
Another success factor is student performance, which can be measured by retention rate, number of graduates, and academic performance of students in engineering course work. Retention is a difficult factor to measure in a population composed almost exclusively of nontraditional students. The traditional model of a student who initially enrolls and then subsequently enrolls each semester until the degree requirements are completed is rare. To evaluate student retention in the Joint Program, we analyzed the current status of those students who were enrolled in upper-division engineering courses in Fall 1995. The results are summarized in Table 6 below.

As shown in Table 6, approximately 71 percent of the students who were enrolled in upper-division courses in Fall 1995 were enrolled and taking at least one upper-division course in Winter 1997. Of those students who were not enrolled, five percent had graduated, and 10 percent indicated they were taking the semester off but planning to return. One student was undecided, five percent of the students indicated that they definitely did not plan to return, and the remaining eight percent could not be contacted. Thus, student retention is excellent at this point in the Joint Program since, in Winter 1997, almost 86 percent of the students enrolled in Fall 1995 had graduated, were successfully pursuing their degrees, or planning to return in Fall 1997.

Through December 1996, a total of five students had graduated with Bachelor of Science degrees in Electrical Engineering. It is anticipated that four more students will graduate in May 1997, three in mechanical engineering and one in electrical en~ineerin~.

Academic performance of the students can be measured by the distribution of grades earned by all students enrolled in upper-division courses during Fall 1996 (Table 7). The most frequent grade was an A. The average grade-point equivalent was 2.90, just slightly below a B. The standard deviation ofthe grade-point equivalents was 0.985, about one letter grade.

Grade data were also analyzed for each engineering discipline. The most frequent grade in electrical engineering courses was a B, compared to an A in both civil and mechanical engineering courses. There were very small differences in the average grade-point equivalents by engineering discipline. The average grade-point equivalent in electrical engineering courses was 2.87 with a standard deviation of 0.946. In mechanical engineering courses, the comparable average was 2.94 with a standard deviation of 0.931, and in civil engineering courses, it was 3.00 with a standard deviation of 0.997.

These results compare favorably to the performance of the traditional full-time undergraduate engineering students in the Washington University program, for whom the average GPA is approximately 3.0. Also, these latest results confirm the findings of an earlier study of academic performance by students in the Joint Program in the Fall of 1994 (5). The results of the 1994 study also concluded that, on average, the non-traditional students in the Joint Program performed about as well in their upper-division engineering courses as the traditional students at Washington University. This study also concluded that the students' performance in the pre-engineering technical courses (whether taken at UM-St. Louis or at a community college) was a good measure of their performance in the upper-division engineering course work.

Student Satisfaction
In order to obtain a quantitative measure of student satisfaction with the Joint Program, data from a larger study of student satisfaction conducted at UM-St. Louis during May-June 1995 were analyzed. The study was sponsored by the UM-St. Louis Student Affairs Office and funded by a federal Title III grant. The data were collected by the UM-St. Louis Public Policy Research Centers and were used for multiple purposes. Sixty-four engineering students were interviewed by telephone.

The data indicated that 55 percent of the engineering students who were surveyed said they were unable to leave the St. Louis area to attend college. Further, these students responded to the question, "What motivated you to choose UM-St. Louis?" as summarized in Table 8.

Engineering students' principal motivation to attend the Joint Program was the availability of the degree program, followed by the location and the cost respectively. Combined, these reasons account for 76 percent of all reasons, compared to 24 percent for other reasons.

The remaining results of this study focus on assessing the quality of the student services and faculty advising provided in the Joint Program. Questions regarding student services asked how satisfied the students were in the following areas:

1. Information on the general education requirements
2. Information about how electives are being applied toward the degree
3. Getting information on internships and Co-op placements
4. Information about finding a tutor
5. Evaluation of transfer credits
6. Information about what courses to take the next semester

The results of the students' responses are summarized in Table 9. Students were asked to respond on a ten-point scale with 10 representing the most satisfied response.

While all the results show a high degree of student satisfaction, it is not surprising that Co-op placements were rated the highest. A total of 32 students have been placed since the beginning of the Joint Program; this represents all students who have applied for a Co-op position.

To assess faculty advising, students were asked the following questions regarding how satisfied they were with their faculty advisors.

1. At your most recent advising session, did your faculty advisor have the necessary information about you, such as transcripts and course evaluations, readily available?
2. During your most recent visit, how much time did your advisor spend with you?
3. At your most recent advising session, did you discuss any personal issues or concerns not directly related to your class schedule?
4. Overall, how helpful was your advisor at your most recent advising session on a scale from 1 to 10, with 1 not helpful at all and 10 being extremely helpful?

A total of 91 percent answered "yes" to the first question about whether they felt their advisors had information readily available. Also, 25 percent answered "yes" to the second question indicating they did discuss personal matters or concerns with their advisors. The distribution of time spent by advisors with these students is shown in Table 10.

The results of these data indicate the average time spent was 21.2 minutes with a standard deviation of 13.6 minutes. The most frequently reported advising time was 30 minutes, followed by 15 minutes, 10 minutes, and 20 minutes respectively. The cumulative total of those students who spent 15 minutes or more with their advisors was 70 percent. Finally, the average response to the last question, regarding how helpful was your advisor, was 8.45 with a standard deviation of 2.04. The most common response was a 10 (42.2 percent) and a cumulative total of 78.1 percent responded with a rating of 8.0 or higher.

A final measure of student satisfaction regarding the overall quality of instruction is shown in Table 11. The average response was 7.35 with a standard deviation of 1.44. The cumulative percentage of students who responded 7.0 or higher was 78.4 percent.

Based on the statistics presented above, the Joint Program appears to be extremely successful. Virtually every measure of success -- program growth, diversity of the student population, student performance, retention, graduation, and student satisfaction -- suggests that the Program is off to a solid beginning in reaching its goals. Furthermore, officials at both institutions agree that the Joint Program is thriving and functioning in an effective manner.

However, we were interested in determining not only if the Joint Program is successful, but also why it has been successful. In the beginning, some questioned the ability of two very different institutions (one public and one private) to work together successfully to implement such a unique and administratively complicated program. What aspects of the Joint Program have been essential in bringing about program growth and student satisfaction? This is an important question for others who might wish to design and implement a similar program.

In order to address these questions, we conducted focus groups and open-ended interviews with key individuals within and outside both institutions. A focus group was conducted with the three program directors of the mechanical, electrical, and civil engineering degree programs. Another was conducted with six Joint faculty members. Individual interviews were conducted with the Chancellor of the University of Missouri-St. Louis, the Dean of the School of Engineering and Applied Science at Washington University, a high ranking official from a large, technology-based corporation that is the largest employer of engineers in the St. Louis metropolitan area, and the Division Chair of Engineering at the St. Louis Community College. Five pre-engineering and five upper-level students were also randomly selected and interviewed by telephone.

The content of the focus groups and of the interviews was similar for all groups and individuals, and centered on the following questions:

1. Do you think the Joint Program is successful? Why or why not?
2. What do you like best about the Joint Program (what are the strengths)? Why?
3. What do you like least about the Joint Program (what are the weaknesses)? Why?
4. What changes would you recommend to improve the Joint Program?

Students were also asked why they chose the Joint Program, how they heard about the Program, and how important the Co-op experience is to the Program. Faculty members were also asked why they chose to teach in the Joint Program, and the quality of faculty support.

The analysis of the interviews and focus groups revealed several major themes that recurred across individuals and groups. Clearly, the dominant theme was the need for the Joint Program, which was mentioned ten times. Respondents stated that there was a clear need in the St. Louis area for an affordable engineering program for "non-traditional," place-bound students. Joint Program students are seen as non-traditional in that they are more likely to be working adults, women, minorities, and must (or choose to) remain in the St. Louis area. The Program is seen as a "second chance" for some students who are returning to school after a break in enrollment, sometimes after many years. The demand for engineers, both locally and nationally, was also mentioned as a reason for the Program's success.

The second major theme related to some positive aspect of the Joint Program administration, such as the ability of the two institutions to cooperate, offer effective student services on both campuses, and provide good advising. The high quality of program administration was mentioned eight times, although there were also several comments concerning how it could be improved. For example,.scheduling classes and handling grade reports were mentioned as areas that can be improved. Faculty advisors also mentioned that they do not always have as complete information as they would like for advising, suggesting that there sometimes is a delay in the flow of information from one campus to another. Students and faculty alike mentioned the need for more supplemental instruction in the evening.

The characteristics of the students themselves were the third major theme, which was mentioned seven times. Students were described as motivated and hard working. They were also described as well prepared to do upper-level engineering course work, an indication of the quality of the UM-St. Louis and community college pre-engineering curricula. The diversity of the student population was seen a positive feature of the student population, allowing students to bring a variety of experiences to the classroom. The "real world" experiences of many older students were seen as a positive contribution to the classroom. One faculty member noted that Joint Program students and Washington University students produce an interesting "mix" in classes that are combined, and commented on how they "thrive on each other."

Several other "success factors" were mentioned. Four respondents talked about support from the community, and saw the Joint Program as a kind of commitment to the community on the part of both institutions. One respondent expressed the idea that program staff members see themselves as on a "mission" to serve the community.

Several other factors were mentioned three times. It was noted that both institutions have the desire and motivation to work together, and staff at both institutions have been willing to work hard to make the program a success. In addition, several respondents mentioned as a reason for success the unique characteristics of each institution. UM-St. Louis was described as having a solid pre-engineering program, while Washington University provided over 125 years of experience in engineering education. The quality and commitment of the faculty was also mentioned three times.

Several other factors were mentioned once or twice: support of the highest levels of administration, or support "from the top down"; the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the program; clear expectations of each institution by the other; the availability of the Co-op program. Finally, the close geographic proximity of the two institutions (17 minutes driving time apart) is a clear advantage that allows students in the Joint Program easy access to the faculty, staff, other students, libraries, and laboratory facilities at both institutions.

A pace-setting partnership between the University of Missouri-St. Louis and Washington University has successfully taken the next step in bringing a cost-effective and affordable engineering education to non-traditional students. The Joint Undergraduate Engineering Program has seamlessly combined the strengths of a private and a public university to provide a single, comprehensive engineering education leading to bachelor of science degrees in civil, electrical, and mechanical engineering, awarded by the University of Missouri.

Since the Fall 1993 semester, enrollments in the Joint Program have grown by about 175 percent. About 86 percent of the students enrolled in the Fall 1995 semester were still in the program in Winter 1997, or were among the five students who have already earned bachelor's degrees in electrical engineering. Seventeen percent of the students in the program are African-American and 20 percent are female; the average age is 28. About 76 percent of them reported that their enrollment in the Joint Program was because its existence presented an opportunity to earn an engineering degree in the St. Louis metropolitan area at an affordable cost. Their academic performance in the Joint Program is comparable to that of Washington University's full-time undergraduate engineering students, with an average grade in upperdivision engineering course work just below B. The students give high marks to the student services (especially Co-op), advising, and quality of instruction.

The most cited reason for the success of the Joint Program is the need for an affordable route to an engineering degree for non-traditional students in the area. Students especially identified the quality and commitment of the faculty and staff, reflecting the commitment of both partner institutions and the St. Louis community. Faculty members were likely to cite the quality, academic preparation, and commitment of the students themselves and the practical dimension the presence of older working adults adds to classes with traditional engineering undergraduates.

The unique combination of reinforcing and complementary characteristics of the two partner institutions is also important. The close proximity of the two campuses, only about 17 minutes apart by automobile, allows students convenient access to the faculty members, staff, and to the full range of facilities and services provided by both institutions.

(1) Hess, H., R. Ringer, R. Wall, J. Peterson, and K. Bellnap (1996). Two-university cooperation: Paradigm for the future of statewide engineering education. ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings, Session 2432.

(2) Kasworm, C. E. (1990). Adult undergraduates in higher education: A review of past research perspectives. Review of Educational Research. Vol. 60. No. 3. 345-372.

(3) Bean, J. P. and B.S. Metzer (1985). A conceptual model of undergraduate student attrition. Review of Educational Research, Vol. 55, No. 4, 485-540.

(4) University of Missouri St. Louis Bulletin, Volume 25, August 1996, 443-453.

(5) Shields, N., M. Scarpellino, and W. P. Darby (1995). Academic Performance and Satisfaction of Non-traditional Students in a Traditional Setting. ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings, 1954- 1959.

(6) Young, J. (1996). New Jersey Institute of Technology and Burlington Community College: A collaborative facility. ASEE Prism, February.

The authors are very grateful to the students, faculty members, staff members, administrators, and others at both partner institutions and in the community who volunteered their time to participate in the focus groups and interviews required for this analysis. Special thanks go to Hermelinda D. Sharp for her assistance in compiling and analyzing the data and for all her other day-to-day contributions that help ensure program success.

Back to Table of Contents