Strategies for developing an exemplary program in Manufacturing Engineering Technology

The purpose of this research was to identify strategies and/or characteristics of exemplary programs in Manufacturing Engineering Technology (MFET) for use as guidelines for department heads for improving the quality of their programs.;The "reputational ranking" method was used as the procedure for identifying exemplary programs. In this method, each of the 28 ABET accredited baccalaureate MFET program department heads was asked to rank the top five programs in the field. From the 25 department heads who responded (93% response rate), 19 ranking forms were usable (68% response rate). The five highest-ranked programs (HRP) were easily identified by the frequency of listing. Five comparative analyses were then conducted to compare higher and lower ranked programs.;In the first analysis, curriculum for these programs was compared by analyzing information from undergraduate catalogs. In the second analysis, survey responses from department heads regarding program characteristics of higher-ranked programs (HRP) and lower-ranked programs (LRP) were statistically compared using the Mann-Whitney U-test. This test statistic was also used to compare the opinions industrial representatives had of HRP and LRP in the third analysis. In the fourth analysis, a comparison between the two types of programs was conducted using existing data pertaining to faculty, students, and institution in which a program was housed. This data was obtained from the 1993 edition of the American Society for Engineering Education's Directory of Engineering and Engineering Technology Undergraduate Programs and the 1992 edition of Barron's Profiles of American Colleges. Finally, department heads of HRP were personally interviewed for information that they perceived as important to an exemplary program in MFET.;"Exemplary" programs: (1) required more technical coursework; (2) required or strongly encouraged coops with industry; (3) maintained closer relationships with industry; (4) had more FTE faculty and students; (5) placed a greater emphasis on teaching; (6) provided numerous, well-equipped facilities; and (7) produced graduates more knowledgeable of materials and processes.