Numbering convention: Each Engineering Operating Policy and Procedure (EOP) is numbered sequentially, followed by the year of origin and, if applicable, the year of last revision.

Downloadable Policies


EOP Title

1-68, 95 Procedures of the Engineering Administrative Council
12-73, 95 College of Engineering Course and Curriculum Review Committee
13-73, 95 CLEP and Independent Study Course Credits
16A-83, 95 Transfer Course Credit
17A-83, 96 Hours Required for Graduation
18-89,2005 Promotion and Tenure
20-80, 95 Twelve-Month Faculty Appointments
21-84, 95 College Graduation Requirement
22-87, 89 Consulting
23-89 Foreign Language for Ph.D. Program
24-89 ROTC
26-90 Overhead Distribution on Grants and Contracts Involving Multiple Units
27-90 Expenditure of Funds from University Development Accounts
28-95, 2003 Faculty Work Loads
29-2000 Engineering Admission Guidelines
30-2003 Bachelor of Science in Interdisciplinary Studies (BSIS) Degree Program
31-2003 Honors Courses in Engineering
32-2005 Bagley College of Engineering Nepotism Policy
33-2006 Forklift Use and Operation Guidelines

 


Appendix

College of Engineering Organizational Chart

Charter of Organization of the Faculty of the College of Engineering

Revised December 1996.


COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING OPERATING POLICY AND PROCEDURE
EOP 1-68, 95
Procedures of the Engineering Administrative Council


MEMORANDUM

TO: All Holders of College of Engineering Operating Policy and Procedure Manual

DATE: February 6, 1968, Revised July 3, 1995

SUBJECT: Procedures of the Engineering Administrative Council


PURPOSE

The purpose of this Engineering Operating Policy and Procedure (EOP) is to establish the membership and operating procedures of the Engineering Administrative Council.


POLICY/PROCEDURE

The Engineering Administrative Council serves as an advisory group to the Dean of Engineering. The membership of the council will consist of the College of Engineering department heads, the chair of the Engineering College Faculty Council, and other college faculty, students, staff and administrators appointed by the dean. The existence of this council does not preclude the formation of other faculty committees.

Engineering faculty members are encouraged to submit comments on subjects that are in the process of being studied by the council, or on recommendations that have been made by the council.

Officers:

Chair: Dean of Engineering
Secretary: Administrative Assistant to the Dean of Engineering


APPROVED:


Harry C. Simrall February 6, 1968
Dean of Engineering Date


REVISED:


Robert A. Altenkirch July 3, 1995
Dean of Engineering Date


COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING OPERATING POLICY AND PROCEDURE
EOP 12-73, 95
College of Engineering Course and Curriculum Review Committee

MEMORANDUM

TO: All Holders of College of Engineering Operating Policy and Procedure Manual

DATE: June 22, 1973, Revised July 3, 1995

SUBJECT: College of Engineering Course and Curriculum Review Committee


PURPOSE

The purpose of this Engineering Operating Policy and Procedure (EOP) is to establish a College committee to review courses and curricula within the College.

POLICY/PROCEDURE

Definitions:

The College of Engineering Course and Curriculum Review Committee shall hereafter be known as the Committee.
The Dean of the College of Engineering shall hereafter be known as the Dean.

The College of Engineering Administrative Council shall hereafter be known as the Administrative Council.

The University Course and Curriculum Committee shall hereafter be known as the UCCC.


Recommendations and Actions:

1. Rescind action of the Administrative Committee dated March 8, 1968, and of the Dean dated March 20, 1968, as follows:

a. "Procedures for approving new courses."
b. "Procedures for establishing a curriculum in an existing department."

2. Establish the "College of Engineering Course and Curriculum Review Committee" hereinafter to be known as the Committee. Procedure for establishment of the Committee and for delineating the Committee functions and scope are set forth below.

a. "Committee membership" - The Committee shall be composed of a senior faculty member from each academic department. This person will be appointed for one year, may succeed himself or herself, and shall be someone other than the head of the department. The period of appointment shall start July 1, and terminate the following June 30.

b. "Committee concerns" - The Committee shall concern itself with, but not necessarily limit its concern to, such questions as:

(1) Are curricula and courses within the scope of the stated purpose of the College of Engineering?

(2) Is there duplication in existing curricula and courses and will there be duplication in proposed ones?

(3) Does the actual and anticipated demand warrant continuation of existing curricula and courses or the initiation of new ones?

3. The mission of the Committee shall be two-fold, (a) review of existing courses and curricula, and (b) review of proposed courses and curricula.

a. Review of existing courses and curricula:

(1) When the Dean on his or her own initiative or upon the recommendation of either the Administrative Council or the Engineering College Faculty Council directs the Committee in writing to do so, the Committee shall undertake a thorough evaluation of individual courses or the entire curriculum of any given academic department, using as guides the questions raised in 2-b above, but not necessarily limiting committee investigations to those questions. The Committee may, if necessary, request various staff members to appear before it in gathering information related to the evaluation at hand.

(2) The Committee shall render a written report of its findings and recommendations to the Dean who will transmit the report to the Administrative Council and the Engineering College Faculty Council.

b. Review of proposed courses and curricula:

(1) Any group, department, or interdepartmental group wishing to propose a new course or organize a new curriculum to be administered by an existing department shall present a brief proposal to the Dean to be referred to the Committee. The 'Committee' shall not be expected to render a decision in less than 15 days after the receipt of the proposal.

(2) Proposals for new courses shall follow current procedures as specified by the UCCC.

APPROVED:

Harry C. Simrall June 22, 1973
Dean of Engineering Date


REVISED:

Robert A. Altenkirch July 3, 1995
Dean of Engineering Date


COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING OPERATING POLICY AND PROCEDURE
EOP 13-73, 95
CLEP and Independent Study Course Credits

MEMORANDUM

TO: All Holders of College of Engineering Operating Policy and Procedure Manual

DATE: June 22, 1973, Revised July 3, 1995

SUBJECT: CLEP and Independent Study Course Credits


PURPOSE

The purpose of this Engineering Operating Policy and Procedure (EOP) is to establish and specify the conditions under which credit may be earned through the College Level Examination Program (CLEP) and through Independent Study.


POLICY/PROCEDURE

Part A - College Level Examination Program (CLEP) credits.

The courses for which the College of Engineering will allow credit through the CLEP program are listed in the current University Bulletin.

Other requirements predicating acceptance are:

1. The minimum acceptable score is a raw score equivalent to the 50th percentile.

2. The credit is considered the same as extension credit and subject to the same limitations. (Reference is made to the Ninety-Second Annual Catalog 1972-73, page 25, under CREDITS. "A total of not more than 25 per cent of any curriculum may be earned by advanced standing examinations, evaluated military service credits, correspondence, tutorial, extension and USAFI courses. Evaluated military service credits are classified as extension work.)

3. The applicability of the credit toward degree requirements is determined by the department head concerned.

4. Credits appearing on another institution's transcript will be accepted by the College as transfer credit, within the guidelines as set forth above.

Part B - Independent Study Course Credits

Independent Study credit up to a maximum of 6 semester hours will be accepted with the approval of the department head and the Dean. In no case will engineering courses taken by correspondence be approved.


APPROVED:


Harry C. Simrall June 22, 1973
Dean of Engineering Date

REVISED:


Robert A. Altenkirch July 3, 1995
Dean of Engineering Date


COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING OPERATING POLICY AND PROCEDURE
EOP 16A-83, 95
Transfer Courses and Credits

MEMORANDUM

TO: All Holders of College of Engineering Operating Policy and Procedure Manual

DATE: March 1, 1983, Revised July 3, 1995

SUBJECT: Transfer Courses and Credits


PURPOSE

The purpose of this Engineering Operating Policy and Procedure (EOP) is to establish college policy on transfer credit grades.

POLICY/PROCEDURE

I. Transfer Credit

Course work taken elsewhere will not be applied toward a degree in engineering until it is determined that it is equivalent to required course work or is an acceptable

substitute. Also, only course work taken elsewhere on which a grade of C or better has been earned will be considered for application toward a degree in engineering.


APPROVED:

Willie L. McDaniel March 1, 1983
Dean of Engineering Date

REVISED:


Robert A. Altenkirch October 2, 1990
Dean of Engineering Date

REVISED:


Robert A. Altenkirch July 3, 1995
Dean of Engineering Date

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING OPERATING POLICY AND PROCEDURE
EOP 17A-83, 96
Hours Required for Graduation

MEMORANDUM

TO: All Holders of College of Engineering Operating Policy and Procedure Manual

DATE: March 1, 1983, Revised December 6, 1996

SUBJECT: Hours Required for Graduation

PURPOSE

The purpose of this Engineering Operating Policy and Procedure (EOP) is to establish the hours required for graduation in a College of Engineering undergraduate curricula.

POLICY/PROCEDURE

Each B.S. degree program in the College of Engineering must consist of at least 128 semester hours. The number of semester hours required for each BS degree program may vary from one program to another within the college.


APPROVED:

Willie L. McDaniel March 1, 1983
Dean of Engineering Date


REVISED:

Robert A. Altenkirch July 3, 1995
Dean of Engineering Date


REVISED:

A. Wayne Bennett December 6, 1996
Dean of Engineering Date




COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING OPERATING POLICY AND PROCEDURE
EOP 18-89
Promotion and Tenure

Promotion and Tenure Policies and Procedures

Bagley College of Engineering
Mississippi State University

I. Scope

This document defines promotion and tenure policies and procedures for faculty members holding tenure-track or tenured positions in the Bagley College of Engineering (BCoE) at Mississippi State University (MSU). It also describes the role of the college Promotion and Tenure Committee (PTC), its membership, and its operating procedures.

The University document on Academic Promotion and Tenure Policies and Procedures, as found in the Faculty Handbook ( http://msuinfo.ur.msstate.edu/handbook.fac/v.html), hereafter referred to as the “University Document” should be consulted for complete expression of promotion and tenure policies, and specifically for (a) definitions of tenure and the academic ranks, (b) definition of the probationary period for tenure-track faculty, (c) general discussion of faculty performance standards and the evaluation of professional activities, (d) duties and responsibilities of the University, College, and Departmental Promotion and Tenure Committees, (e) general outline of the procedures for application and review for promotion and tenure, (f) description of the appeals process, and (g) procedures relating to the dismissal of tenured faculty members.

Each department within the BCoE has a separate promotion and tenure document, which should be consulted to determine (a) more specific departmental requirements for faculty performance standards, (b) specific departmental procedures for application and review for promotion and/or tenure, and (c) procedures for the election and operation of the departmental promotion and tenure committee.

Most decisions on specific promotion and tenure policies and procedures are left to the discretion of faculty in individual departments, with the understanding that the departmental policies and procedures must be consistent with those outlined in the University Document and the BCoE document.

II. Criteria for Earning Promotion and/or Tenure

  • True to the mission of MSU, tenure-track and tenured faculty members of the BCoE are expected to be engaged in teaching, research, and service. It is the level of achievement and the indication of continued accomplishments in these areas, rather than simply years of service to the institution, that determine whether or not a faculty member is granted tenure. Promotion from one academic rank to another is likewise based on the level of accomplishment in the three areas; rank will reflect comparable stature and achievement with peers at other universities. Hence, policies aimed at establishing standards of performance necessary for the attainment of promotion and tenure are to be interpreted not only in view of accomplishments of a faculty member at MSU but also in view of current accomplishments of those in the academic community at large.

The University Document states that a faculty member's performance in teaching, research/creative achievement, and service will be judged by all parties in promotion or tenure decisions on the basis of specific criteria in written policy statements, developed by the appropriate departments or schools.

The parties involved in evaluating a faculty member’s application for promotion and/or tenure include the following: (a) Department Head or School Director, (b) Departmental PTC, (c) College PTC, (d) Dean of Engineering, (e) Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs, (f) President, and (g) Board of Trustees for State Institutions of Higher Learning (IHL). In addition, external reviewers will evaluate a candidate’s credentials and provide comments to assist promotion and/or tenure decisions at all levels.

III. Application and Review Procedures for Promotion and tenure

Consideration for promotion and/or tenure can be initiated by the Department Head / School Director (DH/SD) or by the individual faculty member who has met all the eligibility requirements. By providing the DH/SD with all the pertinent information, the faculty member will enable the DH/SD to make a recommendation whether a formal application should be submitted. If a formal application is submitted, the DH/SD has the responsibility to assist, where appropriate, the faculty member (candidate) in preparing the application dossier for promotion and/or tenure review.

The candidate’s initial dossier includes a completed MSU Promotion and tenure Application form and all supporting documentation that must be provided by the candidate. Other than external review letters and the letters of summary recommendation produced by the DH/SD and the departmental PTC, no material may be added or removed from the candidate’s dossier before it is forwarded to the college PTC unless the candidate, DH/SD, and the departmental PTC agree to do so. Under no circumstance an external review letter or a summary recommendation letter may be removed from the candidate’s dossier.

The candidate will be officially notified of application disposition at each level of his/her nomination for promotion and/or tenure. Written recommendations of decisions will come from each level in the process. The candidate shall not engage in any discussion or correspondence related to the application with any of the reviewing authorities. Deliberation at all levels will be confidential. Upon receiving a copy of recommendation letter at each level, the candidate has the right to terminate the review process without incurring any penalty or prejudice for having done so. The decision to grant promotion and tenure is made by the IHL upon recommendation by MSU president. All judgments made in prior are considered recommendations to the president. The candidate receives a letter from the president announcing the final decision on the application.

After the application review process is over or terminated precipitately, the candidate’s dossier will be returned to the DH/SD to be kept in the candidate’s permanent file. Should the candidate wish to access his/her dossier, he/she can do so only after the external review letters are stripped of all text revealing the identities of the reviewers.

IV. Role of College PTC in the Review Process

Upon receiving the candidate’s dossier for promotion and/or tenure, the college PTC will thoroughly review the dossier to ascertain candidate’s qualifications per criteria established within the respective department, and to evaluate the candidate’s qualifications against broader standards in the BCoE.

Members of the college PTC will vote anonymously. The chair of college PTC will write a recommendation letter based on the majority decision, and will insert it in the candidate’s dossier before it is forwarded to the Dean of Engineering.

  • V. Time Table for Promotion and tenure Process

May 15 th - Faculty member informs DH/SD in writing of desire to be considered candidate for promotion and/or tenure.

- Within one week, DH/SD recommends to the candidate whether a formal application should be submitted.

June 1 st - Candidate begins to prepare the initial promotion and/or tenure dossier.

August 15 th - Department faculty will be informed of the candidate’s intent, and a departmental PTC will be formed.

  • Initial dossier, including the candidate’s list of suggested external reviewers, due to DH/SD and departmental PTC.
  • DH/SD and departmental PTC will begin the process to finalize the list of external reviewers.

September 1 st - DH/SD or departmental PTC chair solicits letters from external reviewers with candidate’s curriculum vita and other pertinent information attached to solicitation.

October 15 th - External reviewers’ letters due to DH/SD or departmental PTC chair.

- Candidate will be provided with excerpts from all letters received, and will begin to prepare a final dossier.

October 22 nd - Final dossier due to DH/SD and departmental PTC.

November 8 th - Departmental PTC submits recommendation to DH/SD, who together with his/her recommendation will forward the final dossier to the college PTC.

December 15 th - College PTC completes its review, and forwards the candidate’s dossier to Dean of Engineering.

January 15 th - Dean of Engineering submits his/her recommendation, and forwards the candidate’s dossier to Provost.

March 10 th - Provost makes recommendation to President.

April 18 th - President notifies the candidate of the final decision by IHL.

VI. Organization of College PTC

The BCoE “college” PTC will have the responsibilities and will follow the general procedures described in the University Document. The committee membership and terms of service are as follows:

The college PTC shall consist of one elected representative from each department/school in BCoE.

  • Each member must be a tenured, full professor. In the event that an eligible tenured, full professor is not available, a tenured associate professor may serve as an interim departmental representative until a tenured, full professor becomes available. In the event that an associate professor is serving on the college PTC, that member cannot participate in college PTC deliberations and voting concerning his/her own promotion application and cannot vote on candidates applying for promotion to full professor.
  • Each member is elected to a two-year term. A member may be reelected, but he/she cannot serve more than two consecutive terms * (four years).
  • The college PTC chair is elected annually by members at the first official meeting of the college PTC in each academic year.
  • The college PTC reports to the Dean of Engineering.

VII. Reviews and Amendments

The college PTC will review the departmental and college promotion and tenure documents on the annual basis for consistency with the BCoE and the university policies and procedures.

All tenured and tenure-track faculty members in BCoE are eligible to submit individually or as a group a request to amend this document or any of the promotion and tenure policies and procedures in the college. Amendment requests must be expressed in writing and sent directly to the chair of college PTC. The college PTC will evaluate each amendment request individually, and if a broader faculty consideration is warranted, the committee will draft a formal amendment proposal to be voted on by the tenured and tenure-track faculty members in BCoE. Voting is conducted at the next BCoE faculty meeting provided that not fewer than 30 days have elapsed since submission of the text of the amendment to the BCoE faculty members who are eligible to vote. An amendment requires two-thirds majority vote to pass.

VIII. Appeals Process

If a candidate’s application for promotion and/or tenure is denied, he/she has the right to appeal the judgment by submitting a formal request to the Provost. The university PTC will act as an appeal committee, and it is only during such proceedings that the university PTC will have the opportunity to review the candidate’s application dossier.

* At the first meeting of the PTC, members will decide on the method of selecting the term limits of the members to establish the initial stagger.

 


COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING OPERATING POLICY AND PROCEDURE
EOP 20-80, 95
Twelve-Month Faculty Appointments

MEMORANDUM

TO: All Holders of College of Engineering Operating Policy and Procedure Manual

DATE: May 27, 1980, Revised July 3, 1995

SUBJECT: Twelve-Month Faculty Appointments


PURPOSE

The purpose of this Engineering Operating Policy and Procedure (EOP) is to establish a policy dealing with twelve-month faculty appointments.


POLICY/PROCEDURE

Tenured or tenure-track faculty members may convert from a nine-month contract to a twelve-month contract with the approval of their academic department head or unit director, the Director of the EIRS if the unit is a research unit, the Dean of Engineering, the Dean of their academic college if different from engineering, and the appropriate vice president(s). Such conversion will be governed by the following policies:

1. Twelve-month salary shall be 4/3 of the nine-month salary.

2. To maintain a twelve-month appointment, the faculty member must on a full-time basis for each thirteen-week summer period, except with the approval of the department head or director employing the faculty member.

3. Upon termination of involvement with the unit, either through choice or through loss of funding for the unit, the appointment shall immediately be converted from twelve months to nine months.

4. For conversion from a twelve-month appointment to a nine-month appointment, the new nine-month salary shall be 3/4 of the twelve-month salary.

5. Faculty members on a twelve-month appointment must follow leave policies established by the University. In accordance with these policies, applications for annual leave must be submitted in advance and approved by the appropriate department head or director, and the appropriate Dean.

6. Accumulated annual vacation leave must be taken prior to conversion from a twelve-month appointment to a nine-month appointment.



APPROVED:


Willie L. McDaniel May 27, 1980
Dean of Engineering Date

REVISED:

Robert A. Altenkirch July 3, 1995
Dean of Engineering Date


COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING OPERATING POLICY AND PROCEDURE
EOP 21-84, 95
College Graduation Requirement

MEMORANDUM

TO: All Holders of College of Engineering Operating Policy and Procedure Manual

DATE: November 7, 1984, Revised July 3, 1995

SUBJECT: College Graduation Requirement

PURPOSE

The purpose of this Engineering Operating Policy and Procedure (EOP) is to establish college of engineering graduation requirements.


POLICY/PROCEDURE

For graduation with a baccalaureate degree from the College of Engineering, in addition to meeting quality point requirements of the University, candidates must have at least a 2.00 cumulative QPA on all courses taken at Mississippi State University that are applied toward meeting degree requirements. This policy will be effective for all students in the College of Engineering graduating after September 1, 1985.

Engineering Operating Policy - College Graduation Requirement
2


APPROVED:

Willie L. McDaniel November 7, 1984
Dean of Engineering Date


REVISED:

Robert A. Altenkirch July 3, 1995
Dean of Engineering Date


COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING OPERATING POLICY AND PROCEDURE
EOP 22-87, 89
Consulting

MEMORANDUM

TO: All Holders of College of Engineering Operating Policy and Procedure Manual

DATE: March 4, 1987, Revised September 28, 1989

SUBJECT: Consulting


PURPOSE

The purpose of this Engineering Operating Policy and Procedure (EOP) is to provide a College position statement on faculty consulting.


POLICY/PROCEDURE

A National Science Foundation Study concluded in part ". . . The academic community, in general, considers consulting to be a worthwhile undertaking, adding to the individual's experience, knowledge and professional growth; enhancing the prestige of the University; and providing the faculty member with additional income. At the same time, faculty consulting is held to be in keeping with the university tradition of public service. Institutions, generally, recognize that consulting makes available to the community the special knowledge, experience, and intellectual competence of faculty members -- assets not readily obtainable elsewhere -- to the benefit of all concerned."


This conclusion is appropriate particularly for any professional school. Therefore, the Mississippi State University College of Engineering encourages faculty to engage in outside consulting that will enhance continuing professional development. All such activity is to be done in accordance with stated University policy on outside employment, including Academic Operating Policy 13.10, "Other Employment".

Faculty members must obtain prior approval before engaging in outside employment as a consultant. A request form (see attachment) should be completed for each consulting effort. Request forms for the faculty should be approved by the Department Head only and kept on file in the Department Office.

For Department Heads, completed forms should be sent to the Dean's Office for approval. The original will be kept in the Dean's Office with copy being sent back to the Department. For work that is proprietary or classified, details of the work need not be given in Item 2; the word "proprietary" or "classified" is sufficient. Approval for outside employment must not be given if such employment would constitute a conflict of interest.



APPROVED:


Willie L. McDaniel March 4, 1987
Dean of Engineering Date


REVISED:

Robert A. Altenkirch September 28, 1989
Dean of Engineering Date


COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING OPERATING POLICY AND PROCEDURE
EOP 23-89
Foreign Language for Ph.D. Program

MEMORANDUM

TO: All Holders of College of Engineering Operating Policy and Procedure Manual

DATE: March 13, 1989

SUBJECT: Foreign Language for Ph.D. Program


PURPOSE

The purpose of this Engineering Operating Policy and Procedure (EOP) is to delete the foreign language requirement for all College Ph.D. programs.


POLICY/PROCEDURE

The departments of the College of Engineering agreed to take a common position with respect to whether or not a foreign language and/or a special skill should be a requirement for completing the Ph.D. The College decision was that no special skill should be required to complete the Ph.D. This decision applies to all Ph.D. degrees offered in the College, including engineering physics.


APPROVED:

Robert A. Altenkirch March 13, 1989
Dean of Engineering Date

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING OPERATING POLICY AND PROCEDURE
EOP 24-89
ROTC

MEMORANDUM

TO: All Holders of College of Engineering Operating Policy and Procedure Manual

DATE: July 10, 1989

SUBJECT: ROTC


PURPOSE

The purpose of this Engineering Operating Policy and Procedure (EOP) is to establish a College-wide policy for the application of credits earned in ROTC courses.


POLICY/PROCEDURE

Credit up to a maximum of six semester hours will be applied toward a baccalaureate degree in engineering for successful completion of the Army ROTC Advanced Course of study or the Air Force ROTC Professional Officer Course of study. Such credit may not be available to students who before they enter an ROTC program have completed those courses for which ROTC credit is usually substituted.
Engineering Operating Policy - ROTC
2

APPROVED:

Robert A. Altenkirch July 10, 1989
Dean of Engineering Date



COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING OPERATING POLICY AND PROCEDURE
EOP 26-90
Overhead Distribution on Grants and Contracts Involving Multiple Units

MEMORANDUM

TO: All Holders of College of Engineering Operating Policy and Procedure Manual

DATE: October 1, 1990

SUBJECT: Overhead Distribution on Grants and Contracts Involving Multiple Units


PURPOSE

The purpose of this Engineering Operating Policy and Procedure (EOP) is to establish a policy for the distribution of overhead on grants and contracts involving multiple units.


POLICY/PROCEDURE

Overhead funds recovered by and distributed to units in the College of Engineering derived from research grants or contracts on which two or more faculty in two or more units participate are to be divided among the units involved. The following should be used as a guide in determining the division of funds.

1. If the grant or contract involves multiple principal investigators collectively responsible for establishing the project, the unit of each principal investigator should receive overhead funds in proportion to the involvement of the unit's principal investigator in the project. A principal investigator's involvement for overhead distribution purposes is determined by the funds expended, in all categories on which overhead is recovered, as a result of the principal investigator participating in the research effort. If additional faculty are involved, the overhead distributed to their units should be determined as outlined in #2 below.

2. If the grant or contract involves multiple faculty but a single principal investigator is responsible for establishing the project, the unit of each faculty member involved should receive one-half of the overhead funds recovered only on the salary paid to the faculty member from the grant or contract, and the unit of the principal investigator should receive the remaining half. Overhead funds recovered on other than faculty salaries

remain within the unit of the principal investigator. If the principal investigator is the director of a separately budgeted research unit within the College of Engineering, all overhead recovered on the salary of the principal investigator remains within the research unit.

3. If the relationship of a proposed grant or contract to multiple units within the College does not fit the above outlined circumstances, then the overhead distribution should be negotiated prior to submission of the proposal by the units and principal investigators involved. The agreement reached on overhead distribution should be indicated on the Internal Approval Sheet prior to proposal submission

Prior to submitting a proposal for a research grant or contract, the faculty involved together with the Heads or Directors of the units involved should agree on which of the above methods of distribution of overhead funds is appropriate for the particular project being proposed. If units outside the College of Engineering are involved, determination of the distribution of overhead funds should be conducted on an individual basis with the understanding that, unless unacceptable to the outside unit(s), one of the above methods of distribution should be used. In any case, the method of overhead distribution should be indicated on the Internal Approval Sheet prior to proposal submission.


APPROVED:


Robert A. Altenkirch October 1, 1990
Dean of Engineering Date


COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING OPERATING POLICY AND PROCEDURE
EOP 27-90
Expenditure of Funds from University Development Accounts

MEMORANDUM

TO: All Holders of College of Engineering Operating Policy and Procedure Manual

DATE: October 15, 1990

SUBJECT: Expenditure of Funds from University Development Accounts


PURPOSE

The purpose of this Engineering Operating Policy and Procedure (EOP) is to establish a policy for the expenditure of funds from University Development Accounts.


POLICY/PROCEDURE

Expenditure of funds held in accounts in University Development may be accomplished either by first transferring the funds to a University account or by direct expenditure through University Development. Funds transferred to a University account prior to expenditure are subject to all expenditure policies of the University for the type of account into which the funds were transferred.

Direct expenditure of funds through University Development may be accomplished by:

1. Adhering to sound business practices in initiating an expenditure,

2. Informing Property Control of the acquisition of any item(s) that if purchased through a University account would normally be reported to the University inventory, and

3. Adhering to all policies of the Central Data Processing Authority in the acquisition of computer or telecommunications equipment.

A request for payment directly through University Development should be forwarded by the chief administrative officer of the unit responsible for the account to the Director of Budget and Finance of University Development.

APPROVED:

Robert A. Altenkirch October 15, 1990
Dean of Engineering Date


COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING OPERATING POLICY AND PROCEDURE

EOP 28-95, 2003

Faculty Work Loads

The workload for academic faculty in the Bagley College of Engineering is equivalent to twelve credit hours per semester, which includes time allocated for teaching, research and service. Due to the variation in section sizes, level (lower, upper and/or graduate), duplicate sections and other factors, department heads are expected to use judgment in assigning teaching loads. Guidelines for workload assignments are as follows:

  • A faculty member who has only classroom and laboratory responsibilities, with no involvement in advising, curriculum development, research or service, is expected to teach the equivalent of twelve credit hours per semester. This is usually the case for full-time lecturers and instructors.
  • Full-time, tenure-track faculty members in their first and second year are assigned two or three sections during the academic year.  They are expected to show significant progress toward tenure by producing research proposals and scholarly papers for journals and conferences. Their productivity is assessed and goals are set as part of the annual review.
  • Full-time faculty who have two or more years of service at MSU:
    1. With involvement in advising and curriculum development, but no externally funded research and limited journal publishing are expected to teach three sections per semester (six per year). If they have a plan for research and are producing proposals, refereed journal or conference papers, and directing graduate students, then one or two sections may be removed, resulting in a load of four or five sections per year. If their load is reduced, productivity is assessed and goals are set as part of the annual review.   Typical expectations for the release from one course per year would be the equivalent of supervising the theses and dissertations of three (3) or more graduate students or publication of three (3) or more refereed journal articles/year.  An additional course may be released for extraordinary scholarship.
    2. With involvement in advising, curriculum development and externally funded research, loads are reduced as follows:
      1. One section (teach 2 sections per semester) – up to 25% salary release.
      2. Two sections (teach 1 section per semester) – up to 50% salary release.
      3. Three sections (no teaching) – up to 75% salary release.
      4. Generation of external funding is expected of engineering faculty members.  Engineering faculty members on funded release are expected to supervise graduate students and publish in refereed journals and produce other scholarship.  Release for such scholarship will not generally be additive with funded release.
    3. Teaching loads may be reduced for other purposes, such as significant service to the department, college or university, or an external organization. Examples are as follows:
      1. One section reduction for one semester (teach 5 per year)  – equivalent to 12.5% salary release.
      2. One section reduced each semester (teach 4 per year) – equivalent to 25% salary release.
      3. Combinations of the above in multiples of a 12.5% salary release per section.
  • All faculty members are required to complete and submit the Faculty Activity and Evaluation Report shown in Attachment A. The form includes percent time for teaching and advising, externally and internally funded research, service, special funds and administration. The number of sections, the credits and enrollment per section permit the determination of total student credit hours SCH. The form also includes spaces to enter activities in teaching, advising, research and service. These data are used to assess performance, determine workload and set goals for future productivity. Productivity data for departments and the entire college are compiled and reviewed annually.
  • To assist in allocating faculty resources among the departments in the college, the three year rolling averages for student credit hours (lower and upper division, and graduate), research productivity in dollars, degrees awarded (BS, MS and PhD) and peer reviewed journal articles are used in a formula to calculate relative faculty productivity. See Attachment B.

APPROVED:

Robert A. Altenkirch July 3, 1995
Dean of Engineering Date

REVISED:
A. Wayne Bennett, October 7, 2004


COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING OPERATING POLICY AND PROCEDURE
EOP 29-2000
Undergraduate Admission Guidelines for Engineering
and Computer Science Degree Programs

MEMORANDUM

To: All Holders of College of Engineering Operating Policy and Procedure Manuals

Date: September 26, 2000

Subject: Undergraduate Admission Guidelines for Engineering and Computer Science Degree Programs

PURPOSE

The purpose of this policy is to establish guidelines for admission of undergraduate students to engineering and computer science degree programs. The level of high school preparation needed to be successful in an engineering or computer science degree program as measured by ACT or SAT scores and high school academic core grade point average has been identified. The following guidelines are established to help high school students understand the level of preparation required for engineering and computer science. In addition, these guidelines are established to help MSU students who want to pursue engineering or computer science, but are at risk, get the preparatory background necessary for success.

POLICY/PROCEDURE

New Freshmen Admission

For regular admission to one of the College of Engineering's degree granting programs as a freshman, the applicant must be admitted to Mississippi State University, complete the following high school academic core: 4 units of English, 4 units of mathematics (algebra, geometry, trigonometry), 3 units of science (chemistry and either biology or physics), 3 units of social studies and/or foreign languages and 2 units of electives, and meet any one of the following criteria:

· Have a composite score greater than or equal to 23 on the ACT or 1060 on the SAT

Engineering Operating Policy-Undergraduate Admission Guidelines for Engineering Degree Programs
Page 2

· Have a composite score of 20, 21, or 22 on the ACT or between 940 and 1050 on the SAT with a high school GPA of 3.00 or greater on academic core courses listed above

· Have any ACT or SAT score with a high school GPA of 3.5 or greater on academic core courses listed above

These criteria are essential for the success of a student beginning an engineering or computer science curriculum at the level shown in the Bulletin. Applicants with justifiable circumstances may petition the Dean of Engineering for special admission.

New freshmen applicants who do not meet these requirements, are otherwise admitted to Mississippi State University, and want to pursue an engineering degree should join the undeclared major with a pre-engineering concentration. These students will be advised for the first 30 hours by the University Academic Advising Center. Students in the pre-engineering concentration will be assigned a mentor from the engineering faculty.

Internal Transfers

Students in the pre-engineering concentration and other students at Mississippi State University may transfer into an engineering or computer science degree granting program if they satisfy any one of the following criteria:

· Meet engineering new freshmen requirements listed above
· Have completed at least 30 hours with a cumulative GPA greater than or equal to 2.00 and passed Calculus I (MA 1713), English Composition I (EN 1103), and Fundamentals of Chemistry (CH 1213) with grades of C or better.

Internal transfer students should discuss the transfer with the appropriate department head or program coordinator before completing the Change of Major form. Some departments have additional admission requirements for internal transfers.

Students admitted to one engineering or computer science degree program may transfer to another engineering or computer science program at any time so long as they meet departmental transfer requirements.

External Transfers

Students may transfer from other colleges or universities into Mississippi State University engineering or computer science degree programs if they meet all
Engineering Operating Policy-Undergraduate Admission Guidelines for Engineering Degree Programs
Page 3

requirements to transfer to Mississippi State University and satisfy any one of the following criteria:

· Meet engineering new freshmen admission standards listed above
· Have completed at least 30 hours with a cumulative GPA greater than or equal to 2.00 and passed courses equivalent to Calculus I (MA 1713), English Composition I (EN 1103), and Fundamentals of Chemistry I (CH 1213) with grades of C or better.

Applicants with justifiable circumstances may petition the Dean of Engineering for special admission.

External-transfer students should also be aware of EOP 16A, which states
"Coursework taken elsewhere will not be applied to a degree in engineering until it is determined that it is equivalent to required coursework or is an acceptable substitute. Also, only coursework taken elsewhere on which a grade of C or better has been earned will be considered for application toward a degree in engineering."

APPROVED:

A Wayne Bennett Date: October 30, 2000
A. Wayne Bennett
Dean of Engineering

David Cole Date: October 31, 2000
David Cole
Provost and Vice President for
Academic Affairs

 

 


BAGLEY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
OPERATING POLICY AND PROCEDURE
EOP 32-2005
Bagley College of Engineering Nepotism Policy

MEMORANDUM

TO: All Holders of Engineering Operating Policy and Procedure Manual

DATE: July 5, 2005

SUBJECT: Nepotism

PURPOSE

The purpose of this policy is to promulgate the procedures to be used in the Bagley College of Engineering to comply with AOP 10-05 on non-employment nepotism issues.

POLICY/PROCEDURE

Cases involving nepotism in the classroom and in other non-employment situations are to be avoided if at all possible. In situations where avoidance is not possible, the following procedures are to be used.

Class Instruction:
If at all possible, nepotism is to be avoided in instructor/student cases. If alternative sections of the class involved exist then students should always take the section so as to avoid the conflict. In cases where this is not possible or doing so will delay academic progress of the student the department must assign another faculty member to serve in an oversight capacity. This oversight will include, but is not limited to: evaluating grades on assignments for consistency with other students and evaluating final grade assignments. The faculty member with oversight responsibilities should be at or above the rank of the instructor for the class in question. The department head can (but is not required to) be the one providing oversight. If there is a disagreement or any perception of favoritism then the department head (or dean if the department head is one of the people involved) will have the final authority on assignment of the grade. When such a situation occurs, the dean’s office must be notified in writing of the situation including identification of the person providing oversight.

Other non-employment situations:
Conflicts of interests should also be avoided in other non-employment situations including, but not limited to, selection of scholarship recipients, selection of award recipients, and completion of evaluations. Conflicts of interest should be avoided in the committees that have the responsibilities for these selections. If such a conflict does occur, the person with the conflict must recuse themselves from all discussion and voting on the case involving the conflict.

APPROVED:

Dr. Kirk Schulz Date: August 18, 2005
Dr. Kirk Schulz
Dean of Engineering

APPENDIX
College of Engineering Organizational Chart
Charter of Organization of the Faculty of the College of Engineering of Mississippi State University
College of Engineering Organizational Chart
Charter of Organization of the Faculty of the College of Engineering of Mississippi State University