Aerospace Engineering - NVAO

AerospaceEngineering

February 2008

� QANU / Aerospace Engineering

Quality Assurance Netherlands Universities (QANU)Catharijnesingel 56P.O. Box 80353503 RA UtrechtThe Netherlands

Phone: +31 (0)30 �303 100Fax: +31 (0)30 �303 1�9E-mail: [email protected]: www.qanu.nl

© �008 QANUText and numerical material from this publication may be reproduced in print, by photocopy-ing or by any other means with the permission of QANU if the source is mentioned.

3QANU / Aerospace Engineering

Table of contents

Foreword 5

Part I General information 7

1. The committee’s task, composition and working method 9�. The domain-specific framework of reference 13

Part II Report on the degree programmes in Aerospace Engineering 17

1. The bachelor degree programme Luchtvaart- en Ruimtevaarttechniek and the master degree programme Aerospace Engineering offered by Delft University of Technology

19

Appendices 65

Appendix A: Curricula vitae of the members of the assessment committee 67Appendix B: Programme for the site visit to Delft University of Technology 71

� QANU / Aerospace Engineering


FOREWORD

This report is part of the quality assessment of bachelor and master degree programmes in the Netherlands. The purpose of this report is to present a reliable picture of the results of the degree programmes sub mitted for this review, to give feedback to the internal quality assur-ance of the programmes concerned, and to serve as the basis for accreditation of the degree programmes by the Accreditation Organisation of the Netherlands and Flanders (NVAO).

Quality Assurance Netherlands Universities Foundation (QANU) aims to ensure indepen-dent, unbiased, critically constructive assessments using standardised quality criteria as far as possible, while taking specific circumstances into account.

QANU’s Aerospace Engineering Assessment Committee has fulfilled its tasks with great dedi-cation. It has evaluated the degree programmes in a thorough and careful manner. We trust the judgements and recommendations made by the committee will be carefully considered by the course providers, the management of the faculty and the Board of the university concerned.

We thank the Chairman and members of the Assessment Committee for their willingness to participate in this assessment and for the dedication with which they carried out this task. We also thank the staff of the departments who contributed to the assessment process for their efforts and for their co-operation.

Quality Assurance Netherlands Universities

Chris J. Peels Jan G.E. VeldhuisDirector Chairman of the Board

6 QANU / Aerospace Engineering


PART I: GENERAL INFORMATION


1. The committee’s task, composition and working method

Introduction

In this report, the Aerospace Engineering assessment committee (in what follows: the com-mitttee) provides an account of its findings, conclusions and assessments with regard to the degree programmes in Aerospace Engineering offered by Delft University of Technology. The report consists of two parts: a part which contains general information and a part which con-tains the report on the degree programmes assessed by the committee.

The first part briefly describes the committee’s task, its composition and its working methods. It also contains a description of the domain-specific framework of reference.

The committee’s task

According to the formal installation decision, the task of the committee was to assess, on the basis of information provided by the Faculty of Aerospace Engineering and by means of inter-views and discussions to be held during the site visit, various quality aspects of the degree pro-grammes in Aerospace Engineering (as described in QANU’s assessment protocol), to decide, on the basis of the assessment referred to above, whether the degree programmes fulfil the criteria for generic quality which are a prerequisite for accreditation, and to identify those aspects of the programmes which are in need of improvement. The committee was expected to produce a written report on its findings for the degree programmes it assessed, in accordance with the prescriptions laid down in QANU’s assessment protocol, and to deliver this report to the QANU Board.

The committee’s compostion

The following experts were appointed as members of the committee:

• Professor D.H. van Campen, Emeritus Professor of Mechanical Engineering, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven (NL), chairman of the committee;

• Professor J. Anderson jr., Emeritus Professor of Aerospace Engineering, University of Maryland (US);

• Professor F. Bernelli Zazzera, Professor of Aerospace Engineering, Politecnico di Milano (IT);• Professor K. Brieß, Professor of Astronautics, Technische Universität Berlin (DE);• Professor D. Holger, Professor of Aerospace Engineering, Iowa State University (US);• Professor W. Wijnen, Emeritus Professor of Educational Sciences, Universiteit Maas-

tricht (NL);• M. Haagsma, student of Mechanical Engineering, Universiteit Twente (NL).

Sietze Looijenga, QANU staff member, was appointed as secretary of the committee.

The members of the committee all signed QANU’s Independence and Disclosure Form, thereby declaring that they did not perceive any risk of conflict of interest or any serious appearance of such conflict in their participation in the assessment. The curricula vitae of the members of the assessment committee can be found in Appendix A.


The degree programmes to be assessed

Delft University of Technology is the only university in the Netherlands which offers degree programmes in Aerospace Engineering. The committee assessed both the bachelor and the master degree programme in this area:

Delft University of Technology:

• Bachelor degree programme Aerospace Engineering (CROHO-number 56956, registered under its Dutch name Luchtvaart‑ en Ruimtevaarttechniek);

• Master degree programme Aerospace Engineering (CROHO-number 66956).

Preparations prior to the site visit

Sietze Looijenga, the committee’s secretary, prepared the site visit. He checked whether the self-assessment reports could serve as the basis for the assessment and established that they contained the necessary information for a proper assessment. He liaised with the chairman and the other members of the committee about the practical arrangements and distributed the relevant information among the committee members. He visited the Faculty of Aerospace Engineering in June �007 to discuss both practical and content-related issues associated with the assessment of the degree programmes.

In close co-operation with the chairman of the committee and the faculty, the secretary elabo-rated the programmes for the preparatory meeting and the site visit. For practical reasons (a majority of the committee members had to travel from abroad), it was decided to have the preparatory meeting on the day prior to the site visit.

The committee members read the self-assessment reports before they travelled to Delft and made a list of questions and issues which had caught their eyes. The secretary prepared a list of more general questions for the various interviews to be conducted to ensure that the commit-tee gathered the information which it needed to give a score for the subjects and facets of the NVAO’s accreditation framework.

The chairman of the committee selected one bachelor thesis and one master thesis for every committee member. These theses were distributed among the committee members prior to the site visit. Professor Wijnen, the expert on educational issues, was the only committee member who did not read any theses before the site visit. The other committee members used a form prepared by QANU to assess the theses they had received.

Preparatory meeting and site visit

The committee’s preparatory meeting was held on Sunday 1� October �007. At this meeting, the committee was formally installed by Professor Karel Wakker, vice-chairman of the Board of QANU. The committee discussed its domain-specific framework of reference and the self-assessment reports, it prepared the interviews to be conducted, it discussed the bachelor and master theses which had been distributed prior to the meeting, and it agreed on the procedures to be followed after the site visit.


The committee’s site visit to Delft University of Technology took place on Monday and Tues-day, 15 and 16 October �007. The committee spoke to representatives of all the relevant stake-holders (management, staff members, students, graduates, members of the Industrial Board, members of the Board of Studies and the Board of Examiners). The detailed programme for the site visit can be found in Appendix B.

The faculty had provided the relevant documentation for the committee to study during the site visit. This documentation included:

• the recent theses listed in the self-assessment reports which had not been distributed among committee members prior to the site visit;

• materials and publications used for information and marketing purposes;• learning materials: handbooks, readers, collections of articles, etc.;• examples of papers, reports and internship reports produced by students;• rules and regulations for writing theses, reports, research papers;• rules and regulations applying to internships;• exam regulations;• written exams and assessment materials;• recent minutes and reports of meetings of the Board of Studies, the Board of Examiners,

annual reports on education;• reports of evaluations of courses and curricula;• results of surveys among graduates;• policy reports and documents relating to the degree programmes.

After the series of interviews, the committee discussed and agreed on the various quality aspects of the degree programmes. It used a checklist prepared by QANU as the basis of its assess-ment. The chairman of the committee gave an oral report of the committee’s findings and conclusions at the end of the second day of the site visit, stressing the fact that these findings were preliminary.

Every member of the committee participated in both the preparatory meeting and the site visit.

About the assessment

The scores per facet in this report follow the scale prescribed by NVAO and have the following connotations:

• the score unsatisfactory means that the quality level for this facet is below the basic standard of quality;

• the score satisfactory means that for this facet the level achieves the basic standard of quality;• the score good means that the quality level for this facet exceeds the standards;• the score excellent means that the quality level attained for this facet is very good in all

aspects and meets international benchmarking. It is an example of best practice.

The score ‘satisfactory’ means that all basic requirements for academic education are met and that nothing notable or remarkable has been observed, either in a positive or in a negative sense, relating to a particular facet.

1� QANU / Aerospace Engineering

The scores per subject also follow the scale prescribed by NVAO, which implies that the score for a subject is either ‘unsatisfactory’ or ‘satisfactory’.

After the site visit

In accordance with the arrangements made during the preparatory committee meeting in Delft, the committee’s secretary prepared draft versions of both parts of this report. These draft versions were distributed among the members of the committee, who returned their com-ments and suggestions for improvement by email. After the comments made by the commit-tee members had been incorporated, the complete report was sent to the Faculty of Aerospace Engineering, giving it the opportunity to check the report for any factual errors or misinter-pretations. The committee considered the faculty's comments carefully and decided how to deal with them. The final version of this report was prepared after the faculty’s comments had been processed.


2. The domain-specific framework of reference

The committee decided to use the domain-specific framework of reference which was devel-oped by the previous assessment committee (which produced its final report in June �00�). It reviewed this framework prior to its preparatory meeting and concluded that it is still an accu-rate description of the demands made of graduates of a university programme in Aerospace Engineering by the discipline and the professional field.

What is to be expected from an aerospace engineer?

Basic sciences and technical tools

The aerospace engineer requires thorough knowledge of and insight into the basic sciences including their generic methods and tools insofar as these are relevant to engineering practice.

• Knowledge of and insight into mathematics: calculus, ordinary and partial differential equations, linear algebra, numerical analysis and statistics;

• Knowledge of and insight into physics: statics and dynamics, solid and fluid mechanics, thermodynamics, electricity and chemistry;

• Knowledge of relevant aspects of computer science and software;• Familiarity with and experience in physical modelling and using mathematical and numer-

ical methods to solve engineering problems;• Extended knowledge of and insight into mathematics, physics, and computer science

insofar as these relate to the final studies in one of the Aerospace Engineering disciplines.

General engineering sciences

The aerospace engineer requires thorough knowledge of and insight into the general engineering sci‑ences to be able to operate under ‘non‑standard’ conditions.

• Knowledge, insight, and skills concerning general engineering sciences: engineering mechanics, strength of materials, materials and manufacturing methods, engineering fluid dynamics, control theory & systems, and design methods in general;

• Ability to relate general engineering sciences to Aerospace Engineering disciplines;• Ability to apply knowledge of general engineering subjects to new situations and to use

this knowledge to solve operational problems;• Extended knowledge of and insight into general engineering sciences insofar as these relate

to the final studies in one of the Aerospace Engineering disciplines.

Aerospace Engineering disciplines

The aerospace engineer requires a broad knowledge of the demands on aerospace vehicles as regards safety, reliability, aerodynamic and structural design, and flight performance.

• Thorough knowledge of and insight into the engineering sciences related to aerospace vehicles:


• aerodynamics;• performance, stability, and control; • propulsion;• structures and materials;• strength and vibration;• equipment and systems;• production, maintenance, and industrial process management;• operational use, including air traffic control;• structural design of aircraft and spacecraft.• Acquaintance with the diversity and interdependence of problems (synthesis) within the

aforementioned fields;• Extended knowledge of and insight into Aerospace Engineering disciplines and their

diversity, interdependence and coherence in problem-solving activities (synthesis).

General engineering and Aerospace Engineering applications

The aerospace engineer requires the skills to apply the acquired knowledge of engineering and aero‑space sciences.

• Knowledge, insight and skills concerning general engineering sciences applications through exercises (lab):

• illustration and visualisation through applications;• skills in application;• skills in problem-solving.• Knowledge, insight and skills concerning Aerospace Engineering applications through

exercises (lab):• illustrations and applications of engineering practice;• skills in application;• skills in problem-solving.• use of scientific general engineering software;• use and development of advanced scientific software for aerospace applications.

Scientific attitude in professional problem-solving

The aerospace engineer must be able to recognise, formulate, and analyse engineering problems and to offer one or more solutions to these problems. The engineer must be able to create a synthesis between diverse facets of the problem, to identify and to evaluate various possibilities.

• Ability to synthesise and to integrate knowledge;• Verify developed theories and solutions through experiments;• Select and analyse relevant sources independently and critically;• Report conclusions and solutions.


Transfer of knowledge

The aerospace engineer must be able to report clearly on the technical‑scientific work both orally and in writing. Proficiency in the Dutch language as well as in technical English is required.

• Skills in writing reports in Dutch and English;• Skills in oral reporting both in Dutch and in English using state-of-the-art presentation

techniques;• Ability to function in project teams and to contribute to the process of knowledge transfer.

The Aerospace Engineering industry

The aerospace engineer requires knowledge and an understanding of the aerospace industry (national and international) and research institutes. Furthermore, a basic understanding is required of the context in which engineering is practised.

Knowledge of:

• The most important ‘actors’ in the aerospace industry and their mutual contacts, both national and international;

• The social context of the aerospace industry;• The implications of the aerospace industry on society;• Industrial organisation and management processes;• Sustainable development;• The Aerospace Engineering profession and industrial practice;• Economics.

Capability and interest

The aerospace engineer must obtain insight into the capabilities and interests required in view of his/her future professional position(s).

Preparation for professional career

The aerospace engineer must be prepared for a broad range of engineering duties in various Aerospace Engineering or related disciplines following a certain period of on‑the‑job learning and training.

Final objectives must guarantee that the recently graduated aerospace engineer will achieve the following:

• a broad engineering education, including a good understanding of the design process and manufacturing;

• accessibility to a broad range of employment positions;• sufficient flexibility as regards professional career;• ability to think critically and creatively;• understanding of the context in which engineering is practised;


• good communication skills;• ability to function as a member of a team;• curiosity and a desire to engage in life-long learning.


PART II: REPORT ON THE DEGREE PROGRAMMES IN AEROSPACE ENGINEERING


1. The bachelor degree course Luchtvaart- en Ruimtevaart-techniek and the master degree course Aerospace Enginee-ring offered by Delft University of Technology

Administrative data

Bachelor degree course Luchtvaart- en Ruimtevaarttechniek:

Name of the degree course: Luchtvaart- en RuimtevaarttechniekCROHO number: 56956Level: BachelorOrientation: UniversityStudy load: 180 ECDegree: Bachelor of ScienceVariant(s): full timeLocation(s): DelftExpiration accreditation: 31 December �007Extension of accreditation: 31 December �008

Master degree course Aerospace Engineering

Name of the degree course: Aerospace EngineeringCROHO number: 66956Level: MasterOrientation: UniversityStudy load: 1�0 ECDegree: Master of ScienceVariant(s): full timeLocation(s): DelftExpiration accreditation: 31 December �007Extension of accreditation: 31 December �008

The visit of the assessment committee to the Faculty of Aerospace Engineering of Delft Uni-versity of Technology took place on 15 and 16 October �007.

1.0. Structure and organisation of the faculty and/or department

The Faculty of Aerospace Engineering, one of the eight faculties of Delft University of Tech-nology, is led by the Dean, who receives support from the faculty’s management team. It has three departments (Mechanics, Aerospace Structures and Materials; Aircraft Design, Integra-tion and Operations; Earth Observation and Space Systems) which are made up of discipli-nary groups centered around a chair. Since �003, the number of chair groups in the faculty has increased considerably, mostly because several chair groups were transferred from other faculties to the Faculty of Aerospace Engineering.

Most support services for staff members and students are organized at a central level within the university. Education and Student Affairs is organized at the level of the faculty, with generic

�0 QANU / Aerospace Engineering

services such as scheduling and registering of grades being carried out at the central university level. Since August �007, the faculty has had a director of education, who is a member of the management team and who bears overall responsibility for the contents and the organization of both the bachelor and the master programme (including the structure and contents of the curricula and the evaluations of the programmes). He is supported by Education and Student Affairs, including the faculty’s quality manager. Before August �007, the bachelor and mas-ter programmes had separate programme directors. Apart from the Board of Studies and the Board of Examiners, the faculty has several other bodies which are involved in one way or another with the bachelor and master degree programmes, among them the faculty’s Profes-sors’ Convention and the BSc Curriculum Committee. The dean and the management team consult these bodies on a regular basis to ensure that their decisions are supported by the staff members and students.

1.1. Introduction of bachelor and master degree courses, wrapping up of old ‘docto-raal’ degree courses: state of affairs

Delft University of Technology introduced the bachelor-master structure in September �00�. The three-year bachelor programme (which is formally registered under its Dutch name, Luchtvaart‑ en Ruimtevaarttechniek) and the two-year master programme replaced the five-year programme Luchtvaart- en Ruimtevaarttechniek (CROHO number 6956). As of 1 Sep-tember �00�, first-year students enrol in the bachelor programme. In addition, all students of the five-year programme were transferred to either the bachelor or the master programme on 1 September �00�. This means that the old, ‘undivided’ degree programme effectively ended when the bachelor and master programmes were introduced. The self-evaluation report claims that the transition to the new degree programmes has been seamless, because the bachelor programme corresponds to the first part of the old five-year programme, while the master pro-gramme corresponds to the specialization phase of that programme. The committee did not receive any information which indicates that the transition to the bachelor-master structure created problems or inconvenience for students.

1.2. The assessment framework

1.2.1. Aims and objectives of the degree course

F1: Domain-specific requirementsThe final qualifications of the degree course correspond to the requirements made to a degree course in the relevant domain (field of study/discipline and/or professional practice) by colleagues in the Netherlands and abroad and the professional practice.

DescriptionThe faculty developed a profile for the graduates of the bachelor degree programme which is based on the generic profile for academic engineers drawn up by Delft University of Technol-ogy. According to this profile, “the BSc graduate Aerospace Engineering has a broad academic background and consolidated knowledge of the domain of Aerospace Engineering and is capa-ble to develop this through study. He is capable of formulating and analysing engineering prob-lems independently and generating solutions, based on scientific and technological knowledge in this domain. Moreover the BSc graduate is able to take into account the economic, societal

�1QANU / Aerospace Engineering

and social-cultural context, particularly during the design of products and services and basic research. The BSc graduate has an explorative attitude and is internationally oriented at heart from thought to action. He is a driving force behind the development and implementation of new technology related to the field of Aerospace Engineering”.

In a similar way, the faculty also developed a profile for the graduates of the master degree programme. According to this profile, “the MSc graduate has an overall view of the Aerospace Engineering discipline. He has a thorough and detailed knowledge of one or more sub-disci-plines and is able to apply relevant mathematical, physical and general engineering knowledge in the multi-disciplinary, objectoriented environment of Aerospace Engineering and its related technical fields. His technical scientific knowledge is accompanied by an application-directed and problem-solving attitude.He is capable of integrating the various disciplines in order to solve complex problems. He is able to develop tools and verify solutions through experiments. He is expected to work in an international context as a valuable member of multi-disciplinary teams. He communicates solutions clearly and shows an awareness of their technical and social implications”.

The final qualifications of the bachelor and the master programmes are based on and derived from the “Criteria for Academic Bachelor’s and Master’s Curricula”, which were jointly developed by Eindhoven University of Technology, Delft University of Technology and the University of Twente. The qualifications are described in terms of areas of competence. They relate to the knowledge, understanding, skills and attitudes which students have to acquire during their studies.

The final qualifications of the bachelor degree programme, structured in terms of the areas of competence, are the following:

The BSc graduate in Aerospace Engineering:

1. is competent in the domain of aerospace engineering sciences He has a consolidated body of knowledge in the fields of basic and engineering sciences,

and aerospace engineering sciences in particular, and has the skills to increase and develop this further through study.

2. is competent in research He has an understanding at an introductory level of the most important research issues in

aerospace-related sciences, and is aware of the connections with other disciplines.3. is competent in design He is able to recognise, formulate and analyse engineering problems independently and

to offer one or more acceptable solutions for new or modified items or systems, with the intention of creating value in accordance with predefined requirements.

4. is able to follow a scientific approach He has a systematic approach characterised by the application of theories, development of

models and the making of coherent interpretations, has a critical attitude and insight into science and technology in the aerospace domain.

5. is able to apply basic intellectual skills He is competent in reasoning, reflecting, and forming a judgement. These are skills which

are learnt in the context of aerospace problems, questions or environment, and which are generically applicable from then on.

�� QANU / Aerospace Engineering

6. is competent in cooperating and communicating He is able to work with and for others in a multi-national and multi-cultural environ-

ment. This requires not only adequate interaction, a sense of responsibility, and preferably leadership, but also good communication with colleagues and non-colleagues. He is also able to follow a scientific or public debate.

7. takes into account the temporal and the social context He is aware of the fact that aerospace engineering sciences are not isolated and always have

a temporal and societal context. He has knowledge and understanding of the context in which aerospace engineering and utilisation is practised by industry, institutes and organi-sations. He has the competence to integrate these insights into his work.

The final qualifications of the master degree programme, again structured in terms of the areas of competence, are the following:

The MSc graduate in Aerospace Engineering:

1. is competent in the domain of aerospace engineering sciences The Aerospace Engineering graduate is familiar with existing scientific knowledge, and

has the competence to increase and develop this through study.2. is competent in research The Aerospace Engineering graduate has the competence to acquire new scientific knowl-

edge through research. For this purpose, research means: the development of new knowl-edge and new insights in a purposeful and methodical way.

3. is competent in design The Aerospace Engineering graduate is familiar with the principles of design. Designing

is a synthetic activity aimed at the realization of new or modified artifacts or systems with the intention of creating value in accordance with predefined requirements and desires (e.g. mobility, health).

4. is able to follow a scientific approach The Aerospace Engineering graduate has a systematic approach characterized by the devel-

opment and use of theories, models and coherent interpretations, has a critical attitude, and has insight into the nature of science and technology.

5. is able to apply basic intellectual skills The Aerospace Engineering graduate is competent in reasoning, reflecting, and forming

a judgment. These are skills which are learned or sharpened in the context of a discipline, and which are generically applicable from then on.

6. is competent in cooperating and communicating The Aerospace Engineering graduate has the competence of being able to work with and

for others. This requires not only adequate interaction, a sense of responsibility, and lead-ership, but also good communication with colleagues and non-colleagues. He or she is also able to participate in a scientific or public debate.

7. takes into account the temporal and the social context Science and technology are not isolated, and always have a temporal and social context.

Beliefs and methods have their origins; decisions have social consequences in time. A uni-versity graduate is aware of this and has the competence to integrate these insights into his or her scientific work.


The self-assessment reports contain further elaborations of these final qualifications. In the case of the bachelor programme, for instance, the first final qualification (is competent in the domain of aerospace engineering sciences) is elaborated as follows:

a. 1. understands the knowledge base of the critical fields to the extent that the student can apply it in basic physical and mathematical models that adequately simulate reality.

�. is able to validate models following an accepted scientific approach.b. is able to relate and apply engineering sciences to disciplines using appropriate methods

and tools.c. 1. has basic knowledge and skills in assessing theories and models in the field of aero-

space engineering sciences. �. has basic knowledge and skills in applying theories and developing models in the field

of aerospace engineering sciences.d. has basic knowledge and skills in conducting experiments and simulations and gathering

data in the relevant fields of aerospace engineering sciences.e. has basic knowledge and skills in deducting knowledge from data, text, problems and

results in the field of aerospace engineering sciences.f. has basic knowledge and skills of accepted criteria on which decisions are based within the

specific fields of aerospace engineering sciences.g. is aware of the limits of usability of standard methods and procedures used in aerospace

engineering sciences.

According to the self-evaluation reports, the final qualifications of the degree programmes comply with national and international academic and professional norms. The faculty’s par-ticipation in the IDEA League and the PEGASUS network guarantees that the degree pro-grammes are in line with those of other faculties specializing in aerospace engineering.

AssessmentThe committee has studied the profiles, the final qualifications of the bachelor and the master programme and the elaborated versions of these qualifications and has compared them with its domain-specific framework. It has concluded that the final qualifications of both programmes provide a good and systematic representation of the demands made by experts inside or out-side the academic community of degree programmes in the area of aerospace engineering. They refer clearly and explicitly to the knowledge, skills and attitudes which graduates in aero-space engineering need to have at their disposal. The distinctions provided by the framework used for defining the final qualifications (the areas of competence) are clear, well-structured and very well suited for technical degree programmes. The committee appreciates the fact that the strong international orientation of the faculty is clearly visible in the profile and the posi-tioning of the degree programmes and that international benchmarks have been applied in the process of defining and refining the final qualifications.

The committee has also observed that the final qualifications of the bachelor and the master programme refer to knowledge and skills which are relevant and useful in the professional practice. The final qualifications of the bachelor programme, for example, mention the abil-ity to recognize, formulate and analyze engineering problems and the ability to come forward with solutions for new or modified items or systems. Most of the areas of competence listed above are directly relevant for the positions available for graduates of the programmes.


The committee therefore assesses the facet which deals with the domain-specific requirements as ‘good’ for both the bachelor and the master programme.

Bachelor degree course Luchtvaart‑ en Ruimtevaarttechniek: the committee’s assessment is good.Master degree course Aerospace Engineering: the committee’s assessment is good.

F2: LevelThe final qualifications of the degree course correspond to general, internationally accepted descriptions of the qualifications of a Bachelor or a Master.

DescriptionThe self-evaluation reports refer to the fact that the final qualifications of the bachelor and the master degree programmes are based on and derived from the criteria for academic bachelor and master programmes developed by the three universities of technology in the Netherlands. According to the self-evaluation reports, the relation between the Dublin descriptors and the seven areas of competence identified in these criteria can be represented as follows:

Dublin descriptor Areas of competence for technical curriculaKnowledge and understanding Competent in one or more scientific disciplinesApplying knowledge and understanding Competent in research

Competent in designMaking judgements Able to apply basic intellectual skillsCommunication Competent in cooperating and communicatingLearning skills Able to follow a scientific approach

Taking the temporal and societal context into account

AssessmentThe committee has studied the final qualifications of the degree programmes and established that they express the distinction in level between the bachelor programme and the master programme for some crucial areas of competence. Graduates of the bachelor programme, for example, acquire an understanding at an introductory level of the most important research issues, while graduates of the master programme have the competence to acquire new scien-tific knowledge through research. Graduates of the bachelor programme are able to recognise, formulate and analyze engineering problems independently, while graduates of the master programme are familiar with the principles of design. Graduates of the bachelor programme are able to follow a scientific or public debate, while graduates of the master programme are able to participate in such a debate.

The committee has also established that the degree programmes have related their final quali-fications to a more generic description of the qualifications of a bachelor and a master pro-gramme which should be characterized as general and internationally accepted: the criteria for academic bachelor and master programmes developed by the three universities of technology in the Netherlands. The committee supports the representation of the relation between the final qualifications of the degree programmes and the generic criteria contained in the self-evaluation report and copied above. It feels that the degree programmes have sufficiently dem-onstrated that the final qualifications are expressed in terms of the seven areas of competence.


The committee therefore concludes that both the bachelor and the master programme satisfy the criterion which relates to the level of the degree programmes.

Bachelor degree course Luchtvaart‑ en Ruimtevaarttechniek: the committee’s assessment is satis-factory.Master degree course Aerospace Engineering: the committee’s assessment is satisfactory.

F3: OrientationThe final qualifications of the degree course correspond to the following descriptions of a Bachelor and a Master at universities:• The final qualifications are based on requirements made by the academic discipline, the international aca-

demic practice and, if applicable to the course, the relevant practice in the prospective professional field.• A University (WO) bachelor possesses the qualifications that allow access to a minimum of one further

University (WO) degree course at master’s level as well as the option to enter the labour market.• A University (WO) master possesses the qualifications to conduct independent academic research or to

solve multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary questions in a professional practice for which a University (WO) degree is required or useful.

DescriptionThe self-evaluation reports refer to a survey among graduates of the former five-year pro-gramme which addressed the question of which qualifications are required for the professional field. The most frequently mentioned qualifications (problem-solving skills, analytical skills, oral and written communication skills, the ability to work in teams, to ability to synthesise, management skills and a broad technical knowledge) are all adequately covered by the final qualifications of both the bachelor and the master programme.

Students who have completed their bachelor programme have direct access to the master pro-gramme, although for some variants students have to follow specific courses (which may be part of a minor) as part of their electives. Graduates of the bachelor programme have access to other engineering programmes offered by Delft University of Technology and the Universities of Twente and Eindhoven and to programmes offered by universities outside the Netherlands (among them the universities which are members of the IDEA League and the PEGASUS network). At the level of the three universities of technology in the Netherlands, the criteria for admission to master programmes are specified in the so-called 3TU admission matrix.

According to the self-evaluation report, the master programme is an academic, research-ori-ented study programme. The programme aims to prepare graduates for a position in industry (as an academic professional) or in research (as an academic researcher). Every specialisation in the master programme equips students with the qualifications required to enter a programme which leads to a PhD degree.

The self-evaluation report claims that both the programme objectives and the final qualifica-tions are in line with the requirements made by the academic discipline and the international academic practice. In addition, they are considered relevant practice in the field of aerospace engineering, as exemplified by the benchmark conducted by the PEGASUS consortium.

AssessmentThe committee has already established (cf. F1) that the final qualifications of both the bach-elor and the master programme sufficiently correspond to the demands made by the academic


discipline of aerospace engineering (i.e. by colleagues in the Netherlands and abroad) and the professional practice.

The committee also feels that the final qualifications sufficiently correspond to the demands made by the international academic practice. It has noted that the criteria for academic bach-elor and master curricula which serve as a framework for the final qualifications explicitly describe areas of competence which are related to general demands for academic degree pro-grammes: the areas � (is able to follow a scientific approach), 5 (is able to apply basic intellectual skills), 6 (is competent in cooperating and communicating) and 7 (takes into account the temporal and societal context). It has already stated that it agrees with the description of the relation between the final qualifications of the degree programmes and the generic criteria. It therefore concludes that the areas of competence just mentioned are expressed adequately in the final qualifications of the programmes.

The committee therefore concludes that both the bachelor and the master programme satisfy the criteria for academic degree programmes.


Assessment of the subject ‘Aims and objectives of the degree course’The committee concludes on the basis of its assessments of the relevant facets that the assessment for the subject ‘Aims and objectives of the programme’ is satisfactory in the case of the bachelor degree course Luchtvaart- en Ruimtevaarttechniek and satisfactory in the case of the master degree course Aerospace Engineering.

1.2.2. Programme

Description of the programmes of the degree coursesThe bachelor programme consists of a major in Aerospace Engineering (150 EC) and a minor (30 EC, to be followed in the first half of the third year). The major prepares students for the engineering approach to problem-solving, the minor enables them either to specialize in a discipline within aerospace engineering or to broaden their knowledge by studying a related discipline. Students conclude their studies with the Design Synthesis Exercise (1� EC). The curriculum contains courses in fundamental sciences (mathematics, informatics, physics), engineering sciences (mechanics, materials, thermodynamics, fluid dynamics, construction, production, computer-aided design) and aerospace engineering (aerodynamics, airplane per-formance, flight mechanics, space science and technology, aerospace structures and materials). The complete bachelor programme is offered in English. As of the academic year �007-�008, only the courses of the first year are also offered in Dutch.

A table in the self-evaluation report shows that a relatively large part of the programme of the first year is devoted to fundamental sciences (three courses, �1 EC). The programme contains three courses in engineering (11 EC) and three courses in aerospace engineering (18 EC). The remaining 10 EC are reserved for the first-year project. The focus shifts in the course of the


programme: the number of courses dealing with fundamental sciences decreases (two courses in the second year, 9 EC, no courses in the third year), while the number of courses dealing with engineering and aerospace engineering increases (nine courses amounting to 36 EC in the second year, four courses amounting to 13 EC in the third year). In the second and third year, students also take laboratory courses (� EC in the second year, 3 EC in the third year) and participate in a project (11 EC in the second year, 1� EC in the third year). The projects in the second and third year have entry requirements to ensure that students have achieved the required level of knowledge and understanding.

The Faculty of Aerospace Engineering offers five minors: Aerospace System Design and Tech-nology, Aerospace Analysis and Development, Aerospace Operation and Exploitation, Earth and Planetary Observation Technology, and Aerospace for Sustainable Earth. Students can also follow minors offered by other faculties of Delft University of Technology, but they need the formal approval of the Board of Examiners. In practice, some of the minor courses (such as Systems and Control, Computational Engineering, and Constitutive Modelling) are con-sidered to be essential for specific variants within the master programme. Therefore, master students who want to follow one of these variants are obliged to follow these courses as part of their electives.

In February �006, the faculty installed the BSc Curriculum Innovation Committee, which has the task to develop a new curriculum for the bachelor programme. The committee was able to study drafts of the reports and proposals of the Innovation Committee and to discuss them with its members. The committee learnt that the Innovation Committee aims to improve the coherence and the balance between fundamental and applied courses in the curriculum and to introduce more active learning methods. The new bachelor programme will be structured around thematic projects and use problem-based learning as an important didactic concept. It will be introduced in �009. The committee did not have the opportunity to discuss or study plans or reports which had been formally approved. It therefore decided not to assess the inno-vation as such. It does support the decision to revise the programme and the starting points which have been chosen. The committee recommends that the faculty make clear choices when it comes to defining the contents of the programme. It is convinced that the bachelor programme should focus on aircraft and spacecraft, which in its opinion constitute the core of aerospace engineering. It has the impression that the development of minors was used as a means to ensure that the various chair groups in the faculty received sufficient visibility in the bachelor programme. The committee has concluded that the number of minors available to bachelor students in Aerospace Engineering should be reduced, that they should be made more flexible and that students should be stimulated to follow a minor in an area which is less related to aircraft and spacecraft vehicles which are not dealt with in the core programme of the major.

In the master programme, students specialize in a particular discipline within aerospace engi-neering. They first select a variant, then a profile within the variant. Finally, they select a number of elective courses which prepare them for their final thesis work. The first year of the master programme consists of compulsory courses related to the variant (15-30 EC, depend-ing on the variant chosen), compulsory courses related to the profile (15-30 EC, depending on the profile chosen), a literature study or Capita Selecta (18 EC) and elective courses (10-�0 EC). In the second year, students follow an internship (18 EC) and work on their final thesis (�� EC). The Capita Selecta were introduced to accommodate students who have a bachelor degree in another discipline and to remedy deficiencies in specific areas. Students who do not


have any deficiencies carry out a review of the literature. Approximately 75% of the students spend their internship abroad. The master programme offers seven variants: Aerodynamics; Design, Integration and Operations of Aircraft and Rotorcraft; Dynamics and Control of Aerospace Vehicles; Aerospace Materials and Structures; Aerospace Management and Opera-tions; Space Engineering; and Earth and Planetary Observation. Each variant has three to five profiles.

F4: Requirements for university degree courses The programme meets the following criteria applicable to a degree programme at a University (WO):• The students acquire knowledge on the interface between teaching and academic research within the

relevant disciplines;• The programme follows the developments in the relevant academic discipline(s), as it is demonstrated that

it incorporates current academic theories;• The programme ensures the development of skills in the field of academic research;• For those courses for which this is applicable, the course programme has clear links with the current pro-

fessional practice in the relevant professions.

DescriptionAccording to the self-evaluation report, many theory-oriented courses in the bachelor pro-gramme provide an introduction to a field that is new for the students. The contents of these introductory courses, among them Mathematics, Mechanics and Aerodynamics, are well defined. As a result, the interaction between education and research is limited in the early stages of the bachelor programme.

Almost all members of the teaching staff are active in one or more research programmes. This guarantees that there is interaction between education and research. Lecturers refer to new theories, developments and insights in their lectures and in the formulations of the problems for the projects. In the second-year simulation project, students learn about new developments in aerospace engineering and incorporate recent research findings in their project work. In the projects, including the third-year Design Synthesis Exercise, students acquire design skills and thereby develop a scientific approach to solving problems. The attention paid to the acquisi-tion of academic research skills is relatively limited in the bachelor programme; these skills are primarily developed in the master programme.

Lecturers who have an industrial background are able to provide examples of the links between the degree programme and the professional practice. Guest lecturers from industry (Stork Aerospace), agencies (ESA) and institutes (KNMI) strengthen the link with the professional environment. Courses that are strongly related to the practice of aerospace engineering, such as Manufacturing and Production Technology and Introduction to Earth Observation, make use of study materials from the professional practice.

Students of the bachelor programme are expected to complete a number of projects over the course of their studies. The problem statements dealt with in the projects have a direct link to the practice of engineering and research. In the third-year Design Synthesis Exercise, the problem statements are often formulated as feasibility studies, initiated by experts from Dutch or European aerospace industries, institutes or agencies. During the project, these experts play the role of “customer”: they are consulted by the students, and they are present at project reviews. Students greatly appreciate the projects and the group work.


As a supplement to classroom teaching, the students’ exposure to industrial practice has been found to be indispensable. In their first year, students undertake an aeronautical and space excursion as part of their project. Many, if not all, students participate in optional excursions and study tours that are organised by the Society of Aerospace Students VSV Leonardo da Vinci. These excursions are one- to five-day visits to companies and institutes such as Stork Aerospace, Schiphol Airport, KLM, the National Aerospace Laboratory, and air shows at Le Bourget (France) and Farnborough (UK).

According to the staff members the committee spoke to, the interaction between teaching and research is most evident when they supervise projects or theses. The outcomes of project or thesis work sometimes lead to papers or presentations at conferences. They are convinced that the attention paid to the application of the knowledge students have acquired has strongly increased since the introduction of instructions, exercises and practicals.

The contents of the courses in the master programme are closely linked with the research pro-grammes of the research groups which participate in the programme. Students often conduct the research for their final thesis in close co-operation with external bodies, such as industry or research institutes. According to the self-evaluation report, the excellent educational and research facilities make it attractive for external bodies to become involved in research projects. The obligatory internship preferably takes place in the aerospace industry or in an aerospace-related research institute. The internship has clear links to the current professional practice in the relevant professions. The participation of the Industrial Board (see below, under F19) ensures that the link between the faculty and the outside world is reciprocal. The internship can be combined with the final thesis work. This combination is more or less obligatory for students of the Aerospace Management and Operations variant. The committee noticed that the internship reports are submitted to the faculty’s internship officer. According to the faculty, all internship reports are assessed by a staff member.

The students of the master programme appreciate the international character of the pro-gramme, the opportunity to specialize and to choose their own programme, and the strong connection with industry. They reported that it is possible but difficult to study at a university outside the Netherlands. They can follow elective courses abroad, but the courses which are obligatory for the variant and profile they have selected cannot easily be replaced by other courses. They need a formal approval from the Board of Examiners to follow courses abroad.

AssessmentThe committee has studied the contents of the bachelor and the master programme. It has come to the conclusion that the interaction between teaching and research and between teach-ing and professional practice is well implemented in both programmes.

Students of the bachelor programme study recent and relevant (for a bachelor programme) literature which treats current developments in the area of aerospace engineering whenever possible. The committee feels that the structure of the programme is generally well-consid-ered and balanced. It regrets the fact that a few essential courses are currently not included in the obligatory part of the bachelor programme, but it has noted that the faculty shares this opinion and that it has committed itself to a revision of the programme which will solve this problem. The projects ensure that students learn to apply the knowledge they have acquired and provide links with the professional practice. They also guarantee that students familiarize themselves with the basic principles of scientific research, that they learn, for


instance, how to develop a problem statement, define a method to tackle a problem and report on the outcomes of their investigations. The reports of the Design Synthesis Exercise, the final project of the bachelor programme, demonstrate that students have learnt how to conduct research at a basic level. The committee appreciates the way the projects have been integrated in the programme.

The committee noted that the courses making up the obligatory parts of the variants and pro-files of the master programme deal with current topics in aerospace engineering. They ensure that master students are familiar with the latest developments in the field in which they will graduate and they provide a solid theoretical basis for the internship and the research which culminates in the final thesis. In the committee’s opinion, the internship provides a clear and important link with professional practice. In general, students carry out their internships in organisations with a very good reputation in the field. The committee appreciates the fact that many students do their internship abroad, in line with the faculty’s ambition to provide an international environment for its students. The quality of the master theses (cf. F�1) amply demonstrates that the students of the master programme have mastered skills in the field of academic research.

When it comes to fulfilling the requirements for university degree courses, the committee therefore assesses both the bachelor and the master programme as ‘good’.

The committee noted that the number of variants in the master programme is rather high. The system used by the faculty is not rigid, students can to a large extent follow the programme of their preference. The committee would like to suggest reducing the number of variants and making the programme more flexible.


F5: Relationship between aims and objectives and contents of the programme• The course contents adequately reflect the final qualifications, both with respect to the level and orienta-

tion, and with respect to domain-specific requirements.• The final qualifications have been translated adequately into learning targets for the programme or its

components.• The contents of the programme offer students the opportunity to obtain the final qualifications that have

been formulated.

DescriptionThe self-evaluation report contains a table which represents the relationship between the final qualifications of the bachelor programme and the learning objectives of the obligatory courses in the bachelor curriculum. The table demonstrates that every final qualification is covered by one or more courses. The first year of the curriculum is primarily oriented towards the sci-entific disciplines, while the second and third years focus more strongly on the acquisition of knowledge and skills in the area of aerospace engineering. The table also reveals that students acquire qualifications related to research and design primarily in the projects along with gen-eral and academic qualifications (scientific approach, basic intellectual skills and cooperation and communication). Another table in the self-evaluation report, which deals with the relation between the courses offered in minors and the final qualifications of the bachelor programme,


shows that each minor has its own characteristics and focuses on the development of one or more specific areas of competence.

According to the self-evaluation report, the components in the programme which deal with the fundamental sciences and general engineering are currently under pressure. The philoso-phy underlying the programme has always been that every discipline represented in the faculty should be ‘visible’ in the bachelor programme. Because the number of disciplines has increased steadily over the past years, the position of the fundamental sciences and general engineering has become weaker. The faculty is aware of this problem and intends to restore the balance between sciences and general engineering and to establish a new balance between the fields of aerospace engineering. One of the tasks of the BSc Curriculum Innovation Programme is to develop proposals for the restoration of the balance.

As for the master programme, the self-evaluation report states that the obligatory modules of the variants are set up in such a way that they cover the final qualifications of the programme. The core modules and the elective courses within the profiles further develop the various competences. As a result, it can be taken for granted that students who follow the obligatory courses and the internship and write a final thesis will have realised the final qualifications, no matter which profile or which elective courses they choose. In this way, the master programme has the flexibility which is needed in order to accommodate students’ interests, while it also ensures that students achieve the final qualifications.

The self-evaluation report contains a table which presents an overview of the obligatory courses within each variant and their contribution to the seven areas of competence listed under F1.

AssessmentThe committee has studied the relationship between the final qualifications of the degree programmes and their contents. It has concluded that the information in the self-evaluation report gives a good and realistic representation of the way the final qualifications are imple-mented in the programmes. The final qualifications are spread over the curricula in a balanced, logical and well-considered way. In the first year of the bachelor programme, for instance, the main emphasis is on acquiring competences in the sciences, while little attention is paid to the acquisition of competences in engineering and aerospace engineering and the development of research and design skills. After the first year, in which students acquire the basic knowledge in sciences which enables them to understand more specific areas and topics, the emphasis shifts to the acquisition of knowledge in engineering and aerospace engineering and the applica-tion of knowledge in practicals and projects. The same line of reasoning can be applied to the master programme. The committee has established that students acquire specific knowledge and skills which fit within their profile in the first year and that these serve as the basis for the internship and the final thesis work in the second year, in which students reach the level described in the final qualifications of the master programme.

The committee has taken the discussion about the lack of balance in the bachelor programme under serious consideration. After carefully studying the programme, it drew the conclusion that the lack of balance does not threaten the relationship between the final qualifications and the programme. The committee does not have any doubts that the students of the bachelor programme will actually acquire the knowledge and skills referred to in the final qualifications at the appropriate level.


The committee has noted that the contents of the programmes are good implementations of the final qualifications and that the students are well able to acquire the competences described in the final qualifications. Given the remarks made earlier about the fact that the obligatory part of the bachelor programma lacks a few courses dealing specifically with important sub-jects (cf. F�), the committee assesses the relationship between the final qualifications of the programmes on the one hand and the contents of the programmes on the other as ‘satisfactory’ for the bachelor programme. Its assessment of the master programme is ‘good’.

Bachelor degree course Luchtvaart‑ en Ruimtevaarttechniek: the committee’s assessment is satis-factory.Master degree course Aerospace Engineering: the committee’s assessment is good.

F6: Coherence of the programmeStudents follow a programme of study that is coherent in its contents.

DescriptionAccording to the self-evaluation report, the coherence in the bachelor programme is achieved in three ways. First, the programme is structured along lines of cohesion and advancement within and between the fields of mathematics, mechanics, aircraft structures and materials, aerodynamics, flight mechanics and dynamics, and space technology. Academic, engineering and project skills are also developed along these lines. The lines of advancement ensure a logi-cal and coherent development of knowledge and skills. In the first year, students are presented with all relevant aspects of fundamental sciences, engineering sciences and aerospace engi-neering. They also start developing their project skills. These are further developed, both in breadth and in depth, in the following years. Second, the programme takes the leading themes of the aircraft and space systems as its starting point. The curriculum is centred on the many disciplines that relate to these themes. Third, the design projects make the students aware of the interrelation between the disciplines and train students in the integrated approach of prob-lem-solving and synthesis.

According to the self-evaluation report, the accommodation of new disciplines (covered by the chair groups that have recently been integrated in the faculty) has had a negative impact on the coherence of the programme. General engineering courses like Thermody-namics, Electromagnetism and Systems Control Theory are no longer obligatory courses in the major. The self-evaluation report claims that the current programme covers too many disciplines and too diverse a range of them, even though they are all related to aircraft and space vehicles. The staff members support this view and argue that the course Systems Con-trol Theory in particular should be obligatory for all bachelor students. The faculty used the introduction of the major-minor system as an opportunity to restore the coherence of the programme as far as possible. The minor programmes were defined as coherent tracks of courses which focus on one specific theme. Three minors focus on new disciplines (Aero-space Management and Operations, Earth Observation, and Sustainable Engineering). The introduction of the major-minor system, however, also led to a reduction in the length of the major by a full semester, which in turn resulted in a redistribution of courses over the second and the third year. Feedback from students in the academic year �005-�006 shows a decline in the appreciation of the cohesion and the programme structure from positive in the first year to unsatisfactory in the third year.


In the discussion the committee had with the faculty’s management team, the dean stressed that an explicit aim of the innovation of the bachelor programme is to resolve the current frag-mentation and to restore the coherence by prioritizing the subjects, by clustering the theory courses to provide the basis for thematic projects which develop in complexity over time, and by making these thematic projects the core of the programme for the students. The one-to-one links between courses and chair groups will disappear, the groups will be expected to cooperate and to integrate their expertise.

According to the self-evaluation report, students of the master programme follow an indi-vidual programme which is coherent and allows them to attain the final objectives of the programme. Each student entering the master programme needs to choose one of the seven variants. Together with the coordinator of the variant, students select a profile and a coher-ent set of elective courses which fit in the profile. The coordinator of the variant, who has to formally approve individual programmes, sees to it that the programmes are sufficiently coherent.

The profiles within the variants consist of mandatory sets of courses. The elective courses serve to broaden the students’ perspective, to provide the connection with other relevant disciplines and to allow students to acquire the knowledge and skills which are necessary for their final thesis work. The master programme thus starts from a fairly broad perspective (a variant) which is further refined (a profile) and turned into a specialisation tailored to the students’ personal interests (the final thesis work). Simultaneously, the focus shifts from more basic knowledge, skills and methods to very specific ones, which have strong ties with research and design activities. This gradual specialisation ensures that each student follows a well-balanced, coherent programme.

AssessmentThe committee has studied the coherence of the bachelor and the master programmes. It has noticed that the structure of the bachelor programme is well-considered and good. The learning lines which contribute significantly to the coherence represent the supporting general and engineering sciences, aerospace engineering proper and the academic and professional skills, which are acquired in an integrated way. The committee agrees with the faculty that the balance in the programme is currently under pressure, as the programme contains courses which represent every chair group in the faculty, while it lacks obligatory courses dealing with fundamental issues such as the course Systems Control Theory. After carefully considering the relevant questions, the committee has drawn the conclusion that the coherence of the bach-elor programme is satisfactory, but that the programme is somewhat fragmented and covers too many disciplines. It therefore supports the faculty’s decision to revise the programme to improve its coherence.

When it comes to the master programme, the committee has established that the faculty has taken appropriate measures to ensure the coherence of the individual programmes. The courses making up the variants and profiles are carefully selected and fleshed out. The final thesis elaborates on the theme of the profile. The committee has noted that the procedure for establishing the individual programmes works well in practice. On the basis of their specific expertise, the coordinators of the variants ensure that individual students follow a coherent programme.


The committee therefore assesses the coherence of the bachelor programme as ‘satisfactory’ and the coherence of the master programme as ‘good’.


F7: Study loadThe programme can be successfully completed within the set time, as certain programme-related factors that may be an impediment to study progress are removed as much as possible.

DescriptionThe faculty regularly assesses the actual study load of the courses on the basis of information from questionnaires completed by students and from reviews by student panels. These assess-ments show that the actual study load of courses varies. The first semester in the third year, in which students follow a minor, is generally perceived as demanding, because of the extensive use of active teaching methods. Complaints about an imbalance in study load over time are often related to the fact that students try to combine courses from different years in their pro-gramme.

A minority of the students completes the bachelor programme within three years. In general, students from abroad (from Belgium or Germany, but also from countries outside the Euro-pean Union) perform significantly better than Dutch students. Evidence for this claim comes from an analysis of the study advice given to first-year students in �00� and �003, which shows that �0% of the Dutch students and 13% of the international students received a nega-tive study advice. The claim is also confirmed by an analysis of the success rates of the bachelor programme.

According to the self-evaluation report, many first-year students (the Dutch ones in particu-lar) find it difficult to keep up with the pace of university education. Dutch students easily accept that they need more time than scheduled to complete their study. The teaching staff and student counsellors estimate that students spend approximately 30 hours a week on activi-ties related to their study. Students of the bachelor programme confirm that the actual study load varies and that they spend more than �0 hours per week on their study in the third year. Finally, some 70% of the students has a part-time job or is active in student- and university-related committees or associations within or outside the faculty. The students the committee spoke to shared the faculty’s analysis that especially Dutch students lack discipline and don’t invest enough time in their study to complete it within the set time. The self-evaluation report concludes that most students need four to five years to complete their bachelor programme, but that this in itself does not imply that the programme can’t be completed in the nominal time. Evidence that the programme is feasible comes from the data relating to international students, who perform significantly better than Dutch students.

During the site visit, the committee learnt that the course Dynamics is the main obstacle in the first year of the programme. The faculty has taken various measures to improve this situation: it has introduced smaller groups, adapted the course materials and developed exercises. The bachelor students confirmed that measures had been taken. The programme director informed the committee that the programme is supposed to contain a number of selective courses and


that the Dynamics course is one of these. The entry requirements for the second-year project are also a potential obstacle. Students are only allowed to start this project if they have success-fully completed the first year of the programme. If they haven’t finished their first year by then, they have to wait a whole year before they can do the project. The same requirements apply to the third-year project. Students are critical about this lack of flexibility in the programme.

According to the self-evaluation report, it is hard to assess whether the master programme can be successfully completed within the set time, because the number of students who have com-pleted the new master programme is very limited. An analysis of the data relating to students from outside the Netherlands shows that five out of seven students who followed the master programme have completed it and that two of these five students managed to so within two years. This shows that it is possible to complete the programme within the set time. Discus-sions with students reveal that the actual study load of courses in the first year is more or less in accordance with the nominal study load. If it turns out that there is a discrepancy between the actual and the nominal study load, measures are taken. The master students who were interviewed by the committee claimed that the programme is not very strict when it comes to deadlines in general and deadlines for the thesis work in particular. They confirmed that the actual study load generally corresponds fairly well with the scheduled study load, but they also reported that they tend to spend more time on their study than �0 hours per week. They informed the committee that the planning of the internship can result in delays. The situation has improved since the internship has been moved to the second year of the programme, which results in a more flexible programme.

The self-evaluation report mentions several issues which require attention in order to ensure the feasibility of the master programme, such as potential scheduling conflicts, the planning of the internship, and the assumptions about previously acquired knowledge and skills. The staff members are convinced that delays are not caused by obstacles in the programme as such. The self-evaluation report mentions several factors beyond the influence of the faculty which have an effect on the time students need to complete the programme. Students who follow an internship abroad, for example, generally take more time to complete it than the sched-uled twelve weeks. Students often need more time to complete their final thesis work as well. Finally, many students follow more courses than they are required to and obtain more than 1�0 EC.

AssessmentThe committee agrees with the faculty that it is in principle possible to complete the bachelor and the master programme in the nominal time reserved, but experience shows that it is in practice very difficult to do so.

The bachelor programme contains a number of potential obstacles, but the committee is not convinced that they are the primary reason that many students do not complete the pro-gramme in time. It has noted that the faculty takes measures when evaluations show that a course may be too difficult or when its actual study load is too high. It supports the view that the programme should contain a number of courses which are selective, and it has no objec-tions against the use of entry requirements for projects, provided that students are given a second opportunity to comply with these requirements. It also agrees with the students who claim that it is difficult to make up for lost time once they have incurred a delay. The commit-tee would like to suggest that the faculty looks at the flexibility of the programme from this perspective.


The committee has concluded that the nominal duration of the master programme is in prac-tice more than two years. The actual study load of the courses in the variants and profiles cor-respond to their nominal study load. This is not the case for the internship and the final thesis. The committee has learnt that students need three additional months for both the internship and the final thesis work. The planning and scheduling of the internship has undoubtedly improved since the previous assessment, but it still needs attention from the faculty, which has to make sure that the internship can be completed within the time reserved. The committee has noticed that the thesis work takes too much time in too many cases. It learnt that one of the master variants has introduced the policy that students receive a lower mark for their thesis if they do not finish it in time. It also observed that students who combine their internship and their thesis work are able to complete their study within the nominal time. It suggests that the faculty should develop a more uniform approach for the final thesis work and should consider the option to extend the number of credits to be obtained as well.

The committee therefore assesses the feasibility of both the bachelor and the master pro-grammes as ‘satisfactory’.


F8: IntakeThe structure and contents of the programme are in line with the qualifications of the students that embark on the degree course:• Bachelor’s degree at a University (WO): VWO (pre-university education), propaedeutic certificate

from a University of Professional Education (HBO) or similar qualifications, as demonstrated in the admission process.

• Master’s degree at a University (WO): bachelor’s degree and possibly selection (on contents of the subject).

DescriptionThe bachelor programme is designed for students who have successfully completed Dutch sec-ondary, pre-university education (in Dutch: vwo) with a Science and Engineering or a Science and Health profile. Students with a Business and Culture profile also qualify for admission if they have followed both Mathematics B and Physics at levels 1 and �. The intake of Dutch students consists almost exclusively of students with Mathematics and Physics as majors at the highest level. Students with a Science and Health profile (5%-7% of the intake) often have Mathematics at the first level only.

The self-evaluation report claims that from �00� onwards, first-year students are less rigor-ously trained in exact reasoning and calculating, and they are used to active learning methods (and therefore have difficulty adapting to passive lecturing). The level at which students master mathematics has decreased, while the level of physics has improved. The first-year courses in mathematics and mechanics have been adapted to accommodate these observations: the size of the groups has been reduced to a maximum of �0 students to stimulate interaction and active learning. In September �003, the faculty introduced computer-supported self-study to further enhance active learning. During the site visit, the committee learnt that the faculty has introduced a mathematics test for first-year students. Experience shows that 50-60% of the first-year students need to improve their mathematical knowledge and skills. The faculty has


decided that it will introduce a refresher course in mathematics for students who have failed the test. The committee learnt from the bachelor students it spoke to that the transition from secondary to university education is indeed difficult, especially for Dutch students. They have the necessary knowledge, but they have not really learnt how to apply that knowledge.

Occasionally, a student with a propaedeutic diploma from a Dutch institute of higher profes-sional education (in Dutch: hbo) in mechanical or aerospace engineering enrols in the bachelor programme. The faculty discourages the enrolment of these students because experience has shown that their success rates are low as a result of mismatched skill levels in mathematics and physics.

Students from abroad who do not fulfil the regular entrance requirements may be admitted to the programme after they have passed an individual test in mathematics and physics (a so-called Colloquium Doctum). Students are only allowed to take such a test if they have a secondary school certificate that includes Physics and Mathematics and proves that they have completed at least six years of secondary education. In addition, they have to show sufficient proficiency in English.

The number of students who enrol in the programmes has remained stable. Over the last six years, the average intake amounted to 308 students, with a maximum deviation of 6%, in the bachelor programme. The faculty has no intention to impose a limit on the number of stu-dents. It is reluctant to draw conclusions or formulate expectations with respect to the number of students. According to the self-evaluation report, the strong interest in the programme is a result of successful marketing and good public relations. The programme gains important exposure through the annual symposium day for the third-year Design Synthesis Exercise. The participation in the Formula Student Racing Team and the development of the highly success-ful Nuna solar racing cars by groups of students from various faculties have also contributed to the attraction of aerospace engineering as a discipline. The number of female students enroll-ing in the programme is low (5%-10%) and decreasing. In February �007, the faculty has decided to organise special Open Days for Girls to attract more female students.

The master programme is open for students who have obtained a BSc degree from Delft Uni-versity of Technology, University of Twente, Eindhoven University of Technology or one of the universities of the IDEA League or the PEGASUS network. Students who have a bachelor degree in Aerospace Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Marine Technology, Civil Engi-neering, Electrical Engineering or Applied Physics are admitted to the programme without additional conditions. Students who have a bachelor degree from a technical university in another discipline can be admitted to the master programme after evaluation of the contents of their bachelor programme and their study results. The Board of Examiners is responsible for this selection procedure, which can result in direct admission to the master programme, admission to the master programme with additional requirements amounting to a maximum of 18 EC, or refusal of admission.

The International Office of Delft University of Technology carries out an initial selection procedure for master students from outside the Netherlands who do not speak Dutch. The selection takes into account the contents of their bachelor programme, their study results and their proficiency in English. The Board of Examiners of the Faculty of Aerospace Engineering decides whether students from abroad can be admitted to the master programme or not. Since all bachelor courses at the Faculty of Aerospace Engineering are taught in English, students can


remedy any deficiencies by following courses (up to 18 EC) from the bachelor programme as part of the Capita Selecta.

Since September �005 the Faculty of Aerospace Engineering offers a pre-master programme (in Dutch: a schakelprogramma) for students from higher technical education. Students who have completed this programme are admitted directly to the master programme. The pre-mas-ter programme is open to students who hold a bachelor of engineering degree in Mechanical Engineering, Marine Technology or Civil Engineering, industrial engineers who have graduated in Electromechanics (from Oostend, Antwerp, Leuven, Diepenbeek, Brussels) and students from the Aeronautics programme (in Dutch: Luchtvaarttechnologie) offered by the Hogeschool InHolland. The faculty has made an arrangement with the Aeronautics programme, according to which aeronautics students can obtain exemptions for the pre-master programme during their study, which means that the pre-master programme is shorter for these students. As of �007, students from the aviation programme offered by the Hogeschool van Amsterdam have access to the pre-master programme as well. Other students with a degree in higher technical education are required to enrol in the regular bachelor programme. Approximately 1% of the students who start the master programme have a background in higher technical education. In �006, 13 students participated in the pre-master programme, which is, the committee learnt, perceived to be quite difficult and demanding.

The annual intake in the master programme varies between 1�6 (in �00�) and 171 (in �003). The number of international master students is increasing (from ��% in �003 to 3�% in �005), which is in line with the faculty’s internationalization policy and the international char-acter of the master programme (which is stated explicitly in the programme objectives).

For many prospective students, the faculty’s website, Open Days and student fairs are their first point of contact with the faculty. The faculty’s website contains general information about the study programme, the admission requirements and the application procedure and links to more detailed information. At the Open Days and student fairs, the marketing and com-munications staff, student counsellors, the programme director, lecturers and students inform prospective students about the domain of aerospace engineering, the study programme and the daily practice of the programme. Delft University of Technology organizes an annual infor-mation day for master programmes. At a national level, the faculty is present at the annual master fair in Utrecht.

AssessmentThe committee has noted that the qualifications for students entering the bachelor pro-gramme have been defined and that the faculty has taken measures to guarantee that the programme provides a good connection with pre-university education. The committee is convinced that the faculty does what it can reasonably be expected to do. It supports the introduction of a mathematics test very early in the programme which verifies whether the students have the crucial mathematical skills at their disposal. It also supports the initia-tive to develop a special training programme or refresher course for students who need to improve their mathematical skills. The conditions under which students have to follow this course should be specified clearly and explicitly and should depend on the outcomes of the test which students have to take at the beginning of their study. The committee feels that the refresher course should be obligatory for students who have failed this test and that these students have to take another test after completing the refresher course to prove that they have acquired the necessary knowledge and skills. In the committee’s opinion, the


results for the mathematics test could perhaps be taken into consideration when the faculty gives study advice to first-year students.

The committee has also noted that the admission requirements for the master programme are clearly defined, that the faculty has established a selection procedure for students who do not fulfil these requirements, and that this procedure makes a useful distinction between differ-ent groups of students. It appreciates the introduction of the pre-master programme, which enables students with different backgrounds to qualify for the programme. It noticed that the study load of this bridging programme is fairly high. The committee is pleased to see that the master programme attracts students from all over the world, who are generally motivated and well-prepared for their study in Delft. It has noted that the link between the bachelor and the master programme is not always perfect: for some of the variants of the master programme, students have to complete specific courses (which may be part of a minor) in their electives.

The committee appreciates the activities undertaken by the faculty to inform students about the programmes.

The committee assesses the facet related to the intake of students as ‘satisfactory’ in the case of the bachelor programme and as ‘good’ in the case of the master programme.


F9: DurationThe degree course complies with formal requirements regarding the size of the curriculum:• Bachelor of a University (WO): 180 credits as a rule.• Master of a University (WO): a minimum of 60 credits, dependent on the relevant degree course.

Description:The programme of the bachelor degree course Luchtvaart- en Ruimtevaarttechniek comprises 180 EC.The programme of the master degree course Aerospace Engineering comprises 1�0 EC.

Assessment:The bachelor degree course Luchtvaart‑ en Ruimtevaarttechniek complies with the formal require-ments with respect to the size of the programme.The master degree course Aerospace Engineering complies with the formal requirements with respect to the size of the programme.

F10: Coordination of structure and contents of the degree course• The didactic concepts are in line with the aims and objectives.• The teaching methods correspond to the didactic concept.

DescriptionAccording to the self-evaluation report, the bachelor programme takes a didactic concept as its starting point which is based on the guiding principle of learning by doing. This princi-


ple implies that students not only acquire new knowledge and skills in the course of their studies, but that they also learn to apply and integrate the knowledge and skills in various situations. This is achieved by adopting a project-based form of design education and by using a variety of teaching methods and formats (including lectures, tutorials, laboratory work and experimentation, assignments and project teamwork). The design projects require students to design a product, developing from a mono-disciplinary structural design in the first year, a simulation programme in the second year, to an aircraft or space mission as the bachelor thesis project. The self-evaluation report contains a table which lists the teaching formats used for the bachelor courses. Another table shows the distribution of the time a nominal student would spend on various types of learning activities. It reflects the concept of learning-by-doing: students acquire new theoretical knowledge, understanding and tools in lectures and learn to apply these to real-life engineering problems in tutorials, labora-tory courses and projects. This enables them to develop problem-solving skills by practising individually and by working in a team.

The most prominent teaching method applied in the early stages of the bachelor programme is traditional lecturing, sometimes supported by tutorials or instruction. Lecturing is prima-rily used to transfer knowledge and understanding of the engineering sciences. It takes up approximately �5% of the total study load (but less in the third year of the programme). The instruction is not obligatory. The bachelor students reported that students who do not attend instruction fail the exams much more frequently. Students have the opportunity to actually learn by doing in laboratory courses and experiments. They get hands-on experience in com-puter-aided design, computer programming, manufacturing, wind tunnel experiments, flight testing, design exercises and testing of materials.

In projects, students have the opportunity to apply the knowledge they have acquired in a realistic setting. In addition, they develop new knowledge and skills related to designing, tech-nical and project management, communication and considering the context. They experience a project as highly motivating. Short courses on e.g. effective technical writing, oral presenta-tion and project management have been integrated in the projects. Students learn the theories and skills dealt with in these courses in the practical setting of the project environment. The bachelor students who were interviewed by the committee confirmed that an important part of the work to be carried out in the project is acquiring and developing new knowledge. They also become aware of the need for lifelong learning: projects often require the acquisition of additional theories and methods.

The main educational forms used in the master programme are lectures, internship and self-study. Lectures are used for transferring domain-specific knowledge, both in obligatory courses and in elective courses. They may include exercises and project work to give students the opportunity to apply the knowledge they have acquired in practice. Depending on students’ individual study programme, lectures amount to �5% to 30% of the actual study load of the programme as a whole. The actual number of lecture and instruction hours is approximately one-third of the corresponding study load. In the internship, students apply the acquired knowledge and skills in practice. Self-study is used in literature research and in the final thesis work. Self-study is always performed under the supervision of a staff member. In their final thesis work, students are expected to identify knowledge which they lack, to gather relevant information, to reflect critically, to communicate the results to a broader audience and to write a report.


The distinction between the different teaching methods is less explicit in the master pro-gramme than it is in the bachelor programme. It is, for instance, difficult to make a clear distinction between lectures and instruction in the first year. In the second year, self-study is not a separate activity but becomes an integral part of the learning process. According to the self-evaluation report, this gradual merging of didactic methods is an essential preparation for the labour market, where acquiring knowledge and skills cannot be separated into various separate concepts.

AssessmentThe committee has observed that the bachelor and master programmes use a didactic concept (appropriately summarized as ‘learning by doing’) which is well suited for the programmes. The essence of the field of aerospace engineering is captured nicely in the combination of theoretically oriented courses and courses which focus on the application of the knowledge students have acquired. The committee is especially pleased with the integration of the acquisi-tion of new knowledge and new skills in the bachelor programme. It is also positive about the integration of general engineering issues in the courses on aerospace engineering. It has noticed that the Design Synthesis Exercise is a truly integrative conclusion of the bachelor programme. The only critical remark which the committee would like to make is that the different chair groups contributing to the programme do not integrate to the same extent.

When it comes to the master programme, the committee noticed that the didactic concept is less clearly visible in the programme, mainly because the groups are much smaller than they are in the bachelor programme and because students spend a considerable amount of time on individual work.

The committee therefore concludes that the didactic concept is in line with the final qualifica-tions of the programmes and is elaborated fairly well in the bachelor programme in particular. It assesses the coordination of structure and contents as ‘good’ in the case of the bachelor pro-gramme and as ‘satisfactory’ in the case of the master programme.

Bachelor degree course Luchtvaart‑ en Ruimtevaarttechniek: the committee’s assessment is good.Master degree course Aerospace Engineering: the committee’s assessment is satisfactory.

F11: Assessments and examinationsThe system of assessments and examinations provides an effective indication whether the students have reached the learning targets of the course programme or its components.

DescriptionThe bachelor programme uses various assessment methods to account for the variety of com-petencies to be mastered and the strong and weak points of the different methods. The lectur-ers determine the appropriate form of assessment for their courses, taking into account the content, the learning objectives, the teaching method and the number of students. They also determine the pass criteria. Most of the theory courses are assessed via a written examination at the end of the teaching period, with a resit after another teaching period. The number of oral examinations in the bachelor programme is very small. Usually, there are no more than two examinations per course per year to ensure that students adequately prepare themselves for the exams. A limited number of courses, which have to be completed before students are allowed to start a project, have an additional resit. Most examinations test theoretical knowl-


edge and practical insight, with an emphasis on the application of knowledge to specific tech-nical cases.

In some courses, students carry out individual homework assignments during the teaching period. These assignments may function as bonuses in the final examination of the course or even substitute for that examination. Both students and teaching staff are highly satisfied with this type of assessment: it forces students to apply the theory from the lectures, which improves consolidation of knowledge, and to study regularly and thus avoid peaks in study load. The bachelor students reported that they are adequately prepared for the exams if they do the assignments. According to the students, these intermediate tests are only used in second-year courses. They suggested that these tests should also be introduced in the first year in order to improve the pass rates of first-year courses. Tutors and teaching assistants evaluate the reports of the laboratory courses and experiments on the basis of group performance and individual performance.

As for the project in the first year, the report is the responsibility of the group as a whole, so each student in the group receives the same group mark. In addition to this, the contributions of individual students to the project are assessed by the tutor, with support from coaches or teaching assistants, and in a student peer evaluation. This individual assessment can result in a correction of the group mark for individual students. The second-year projects are also evaluated on an individual basis. There is no explicit validation that each student has a good understanding of the details of the overall project beyond his own contribution. These projects also use a peer evaluation system: students in the project group evaluate their fellow students and themselves and thereby support the tutor’s evaluation. The tutor and the project coach give individual feedback to the team members.

The third-year Design Synthesis Exercise uses a method of grading in which technical per-formance and team performance are judged both on a group level and on an individual level. It is difficult to decide whether every individual student has actually achieved the objectives defined for the final exercise. Tutors assess the group as a whole and its individual members. Two peer evaluations are carried out in the course of the project. The principal tutor estab-lishes a mark and provides individual feedback to the team members both during and at the end of the project. The tutors are trained to conduct the individual assessment, and they use forms which were specifically designed for this purpose, but they admit that it is still difficult to ensure that the individual assessments are adequate.

The lecture-based courses in the master programme are assessed by means of written exami-nations, oral examinations, take-home assignments or a combination of examination forms. In general, students who have failed a written examination have one more opportunities per year to pass the test. Practical exercises are also evaluated. Projects are assessed individually on the basis of a written report or an oral examination. The assessment of the internship takes into account the industrial orientation, the societal context and the development of social and intellectual skills. The master students reported that they always have a supervisor within the company where they carry out their internship, but that they cannot take it for granted that there is a supervisor from the faculty as well. The committee learnt that master students are generally satisfied with the supervision for their final thesis work. They have regular meetings with the staff member who formally acts as thesis supervisor. In some of the variants, students give presentations about their thesis work.


The Board of Examiners is responsible for any rules and regulations related to examinations. Its main task is to verify whether the rules and regulations are applied consistently and correctly. It has a small executive committee which meets once a month to discuss practical matters. The full board meets four times a year and discusses more general, policy-related issues. The formal regulations applying to assessments and examinations are published on the faculty’s website. Each month (except in July and August), the Board decides which students have satisfied the requirements for the propaedeutic or the bachelor degree. Three times a year, it determines which students have obtained the master degree. It approves the make-up of the committees which are responsible for final graduations, but it is not involved in the assessments of final theses. It does not assess the quality of assignments or exams.

AssessmentThe committee has established that the bachelor and the master programmes apply assessment methods which are adequately connected to the contents of the courses making up the pro-grammes. It feels that the faculty’s given starting points are appropriate and correct. Written examinations are well suited for theoretical courses, while the assessment of projects should be based on project reports and contributions from individual students. The committee stud-ied written examinations during its site visit and concluded that their quality and scope are adequate, but that some exams are rather demanding. The committee is aware of the difficulty of properly identifying and assessing individual contributions to projects. It has observed that the faculty deals with this issue in a careful and well-considered way. It appreciates the peer reviews by students which partly determine the individual assessments. The committee learnt that the number of resits is problematic for some students, who incur a serious delay because they are not allowed to start the projects.

The committee appreciates the intermediate assignments which are used in the second-year bachelor courses. It recommends the faculty consider the introduction of similar assignments in the first-year of the bachelor programme. It has learnt that the system of bonus points which can be earned for the intermediate assignments is highly motivating for students and that it ensures that they distribute their time more evenly and start the preparations for the exam period at an early stage.

The committee has established that some of the exams for the bachelor programme are diffi-cult to complete within a period of three hours. Students need time to reflect on their answers during the exam. This observation was confirmed by bachelor students. The committee there-fore recommends the faculty look into the exams carefully.

During its site visit, the committee received information which indicates that the assessment of the internship in the master programme can be improved. The committee learnt that the faculty is not sufficiently involved in the assessment, which is mainly carried out by the external supervi-sor in co-operation with a staff member. The committee recommends the faculty ensure that the staff is adequately involved in the supervision and assessment of the internship.

The committee concludes that both the bachelor and the master programmes score ‘satisfac-tory’ when it comes to assessment and examinations.



Assessment of the subject ‘Programme’The committee concludes on the basis of its assessments of the relevant facets that the assessment for the subject ‘Programme’ is satisfactory in the case of the bachelor degree course Luchtvaart- en Ruimtevaarttechniek and satisfactory in the case of the master degree course Aerospace Engineering.

1.2.3. Deployment of staff

F12: Requirements for UniversityThe degree course meets the following criteria for the deployment of staff for a degree course at a University (WO):Teaching is largely provided by researchers who contribute to the development of the subject area.

DescriptionThe self-evaluation report contains a table which provides an overview of the staff members who are involved in the bachelor and the master programmes (reference date: 1 December �005). The table shows that a total of 316 staff members contributed in one way or another, among them �3 full professors, 19 associate professors, 37 assistant professors, 11 non-ten-ured lecturers, 91 PhD students and 5� teaching assistants. More than 70% of the academic staff members (professors, associate professors and assistant professor) has a doctoral degree in either engineering or science. Academic staff members are actively involved in approxi-mately 65% of all the teaching activities (including tutoring and supervision). According to the self-evaluation report, the academic staff members work at the forefront of their respective fields of expertise and are all actively involved in research. Staff members from other facul-ties (including the Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, the Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management and the Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mathematics and Computer Science) contribute to the more fundamental courses (in mathematics and computer programming and communication skills, among others). Their contributions amount to 1.� fte in the bachelor programme. Experienced technical personnel and teaching assistants support the organization or tutoring of projects or tutorials when required.

The students who were interviewed by the committee reported that the involvement of pro-fessors in the first two years of the bachelor programme is limited. A few professors give a full course in these years, others contribute to a couple of lectures or courses.

AssessmentThe committee has observed that the vast majority of the staff members involved in the degree pro-grammes have a PhD degree and conduct research which is assessed by external experts on a regular basis and is of high quality. It established that the number of staff members who have a PhD degree has increased significantly since the previous assessment. It nevertheless recommends the faculty increase this number further by stimulating and enabling more staff members to write a PhD the-sis. In the most recent research assessment, which took place in �001, the quality of the research programmes was assessed as very good to excellent. The scientific expertise of the staff members covers all the relevant subdisciplines within the area of aerospace engineering. The committee con-cludes that a large part of the teaching activities is provided by researchers who have a prominent position in their specific field of expertise. It assesses the academic and scientific qualifications of the staff members who contribute to the bachelor and the master programmes as ‘good’.


The committee has noted that the participation of professors in the first and the second year of the bachelor programme is limited. It is convinced that it is important for students to become acquainted with the leading researchers of the faculty at an early stage. It therefore recom-mends the faculty increase the contribution by professors in the first two years of the bachelor programme.


F13: Quantity of staffThe staff levels are sufficient to ensure that the course is provided to the required standards.

DescriptionAccording to the self-evaluation report, there is sufficient staff to ensure that the desired edu-cational quality can be sustained in the bachelor programme. This conclusion is drawn from the comparison between the teaching load as computed with the so-called Teaching Budget Model, according to which the bachelor programme requires a total of 15.9 fte, and the actual staff time available for the bachelor programme (18.7 fte). The amount of staff time available for the innovation of courses and the development and incorporation of more active teach-ing methods is limited. The additional teaching activities which follow from the introduction of minors require an additional capacity of �.5 fte. As a result, the total amount of staff time required for the bachelor programme has increased to 18.� fte. The remaining amount of staff time for teaching activities (�8.0 fte) is reserved for the master programme. The faculty has decided to enlarge the size of the teaching staff by recruiting four to five additional lecturers who will be appointed for teaching purposes only.

The self-evaluation report points out that the teaching loads are unevenly distributed over the chair groups in the faculty. As a result, it is sometimes difficult for the chairs to distrib-ute the tasks among staff members. According to the staff members, the current increase in the number of students may lead to problems in the final phases of the bachelor and master programmes: the supervision of projects and thesis work is very time-consuming compared to courses or projects in the bachelor programme.

The faculty benefits from the substantial involvement of teaching assistants in the bachelor programme. These assistants contribute to the supervision of first-year projects and to the guidance of first-year students. On average, the faculty employs approximately 50 teaching assistants a year, who work eight hours per week.

The self-evaluation report provides information about the staff-to-student ratio and the number of graduates in relation to the total amount of staff time. In the academic year �00�-�005, the total number of bachelor students was 1560, while the amount of staff time available for the bachelor programme was 18.7 fte, which implies that there were 83 students for every full-time equivalent of staff time. In the same year, the total number of master students was ��5, while the amount of staff time available for the master programme was �8.0 fte, which means that there were 15.� students per full-time equivalent of staff time.


AssessmentThe committee has established that the amount of staff time available for teaching pur-poses is currently sufficient. The staff-to-student ratios for the bachelor and the master programmes are high, but still feasible. The committee received various indications that the faculty will have to take measures in the near future to guarantee that the amount of the staff time continues to be sufficient. Many staff members have a high work load and find it difficult to spend enough time on their research. The committee would like to point out that this situation presents some serious risks in the long run: it endangers the embedding of the degree programmes in research activities. It noticed that the faculty’s management team shares this analysis.

The committee supports the faculty’s policy to increase the number of teachers, but it is also convinced that staff members should not be appointed for teaching purposes only. The com-mittee finds it of crucial importance that all staff members are involved with research in one way or another, for example by supervising final thesis work.

The committee therefore assesses the size of the teaching staff as ‘satisfactory’ for both the bachelor and the master programmes. It recommends the faculty keep an eye on the amount of staff time available for teaching and take measures to ensure the link with research where needed.


F14: Quality of staffThe staff is sufficiently qualified to ensure that the aims regards contents, didactics and organization of the course programme are achieved.

DescriptionThe self-evaluation report refers to the outcomes of surveys which provide an indication of the quality of the teaching staff. The �005 WO monitor concludes that the quality of personnel within the Faculty of Aerospace Engineering is more than satisfactory. The feedback provided by bachelor students in Sensor questionnaires indicates that the level is “satisfactory”, but the marks show a wider spread, ranging from “marginal” to “very good” for individual lecturers. The information emerging from the annual assessments which are held as part of the Result and Development cycle also indicates that the didactic qualities of the teaching staff members are assessed positively.

In line with the policy of Delft University of Technology (outlined in Focus on Education), the Faculty of Aerospace Engineering treats teaching qualifications on the same footing as research qualifications. The educational performance of staff members is taken into consideration in the annual assessment interviews. The recruitment policy of the faculty states that tenured staff members need to have a doctoral degree. This policy also applies to staff members whose teaching activities are restricted to the bachelor programme. The faculty only deviates from this policy under exceptional circumstances. In such a case, the qualifications of new staff members are expected to be at least equal to those of someone who has a doctoral degree. The self-evaluation report mentions that the faculty sometimes observes a conflict between the


guidelines of the formal personnel policy and the wish to attract staff members with a back-ground in industry and to offer these staff members career opportunities.

During its site visit, the committee learnt that staff members consider teaching and research to be equally important parts of their activities. They are convinced that the faculty needs staff members with educational expertise, but they are concerned about the fact that the university still values research achievements higher than teaching performance.

Newly appointed staff members are expected to follow a number of modules from a course which leads to a didactic qualification (in Dutch: Basiskwalificatie Onderwijs). This course con-sists of 11 modules (with Active and Collaborative Learning as the basic module) which deal with different aspects of educational professionalism. Experienced lecturers who wish to or have been advised to improve their teaching skills can also follow this course. As of 1 December �005, six lecturers have successfully completed the full course, while another ten staff members have completed the basic module. The faculty is convinced that new educational developments will make it necessary for staff members to follow supplementary courses. The committee spoke to staff members who have followed the course. They reported that the course was useful, even though it took a lot of time to complete it. The evaluation of the courses taught by these staff members improved, but the pass rates did not. The staff members informed the committee that the completion of the courses does not lead to a diploma or certificate. They are convinced that the motivation to obtain a didactic qualification would improve if staff members received an official document stating that they have acquired that qualification. According to the faculty, staff members who have completed their course receive a certificate which states that they have obtained a didactic qualification for university teaching.

The board of Delft University of Technology has decided that the English language skills of all staff members have to be improved. In December �006 and January �007, the staff members of the Faculty of Aerospace Engineering took a test to determine their proficiency in English. The results of these tests are used in the assessment interviews. From �007 onwards, the pro-gramme director has an advisory role in the assessment of the teaching staff.

Since �00�, the Faculty of Aerospace Engineering has a Career Committee, which consists of three professors and the Human Resources Manager. The Career Committee advises the Dean on proposals for the promotion of staff members.

AssessmentThe committee has established, on the basis of its own observations and the information pro-vided by students, that the staff members are inspired, motivated and committed teachers who have the required didactic competence. They provide clear evidence that the policy to treat teaching and research as equally important activities works at the level of the individual staff members. The disciplines dealt with in the programmes are well covered by the various chair groups. The committee did not receive information indicating that the organizational aspects of the programmes are in need of improvement.

The committee agrees with the faculty’s personnel policy that tenured staff members are expected to have a PhD degree, but it also finds it important that staff members with a tem-porary position have a PhD degree and are active in research. The committee noted that the number of staff members who participate in a course which leads to a didactic qualification is limited. It supports the suggestion made by staff members to award a certificate to those


who have successfully completed the course. It noted that the faculty is aware of the fact that the innovation of the bachelor programme may impose new demands or requirements on the teach-ing staff. The committee finds it important that staff members have the opportunity to follow courses which aim at the improvement of their didactic skills and would like to point out that it may be necessary to temporarily relieve these staff members of some of their regular duties.

The committee concludes that the staff members are well qualified in terms of content, didac-tic qualifications and organizational skills and assesses the facet which relates to the quality of the staff as ‘good’ for both the bachelor and the master programmes.


Assessment of the subject ‘Deployment of staff ’The committee concludes on the basis of its assessments of the relevant facets that the assessment for the subject ‘Deployment of staff ’ is satisfactory in the case of the bachelor degree course Luchtvaart- en Ruimtevaarttechniek and satisfactory in the case of the master degree course Aerospace Engineering.

1.2.4. Facilities and provisions

F15: Material facilitiesThe accommodation and material facilities are sufficient to implement the programme.

DescriptionThe main building of the Faculty of Aerospace Engineering, located at Kluyverweg 1 in Delft, houses most of the staff and research groups, the lecture and project rooms, the Structures and Materials Lab, the SImulation, MOtion and NAvigation technologies (SIMONA) laboratory, the spacecraft integration laboratory, and several institutes with strong ties to the Faculty of Aerospace Engineering. The aerodynamics group is located at Kluyverweg �, which houses four high-speed wind tunnels and four low-speed wind tunnels.

The faculty hangar houses a collection of aircraft and spacecraft parts, including cockpits, wings, advanced sensors and rocket parts. Particularly eye-catching pieces include a full-scale structural test model of ESA’s Envisat, a helicopter and a Starfighter, and the Airbus A3�0 composite vertical tail. Students use the collection as their reference for their first- and second-year studies and laboratory experimentation in the fields of drafting (introductory engineer-ing drawing), construction, weight and centre-of-gravity measurements, mechanical control systems, mechanism design, and materials.

The faculty aims at accommodating all teaching activities in its own building. The main build-ing has eight lecture rooms and one video conferencing room. It also has twenty-two project rooms which all contain eight computers and other equipment such as whiteboards and a conference table. These rooms are used for the projects in the bachelor programme, including the Design Synthesis Exercise. The laboratory facilities are mainly used by master students working on their final thesis.


The self-evaluation report states that the faculty’s facilities and especially its laboratories are of outstanding quality. They enable students to gain hands-on experience in wind tunnel experi-ments and in-flight testing. Lecture rooms, project rooms and computing facilities are also up to standard. The computer instruction room is used for aerospace computer tutorials and laboratory courses. The results of recent surveys (the Monitor Logistic Quality report of Delft University of Technology, the �005 WO Monitor Executive Summary and the report Wanted, easily flowing engineers) indicate that students share the faculty’s opinion about the outstanding quality of the facilities. The ICT facilities are also highly valued. The number of computers in the project rooms was increased in �005. Since then, the number of complaints about com-puter capacity in project evaluations has minimized. The facilities available enable the faculty to accommodate the teaching methods used in the bachelor and master programme. There is, however, a severe lack of quiet areas for self-study. As a temporary solution, the faculty made the project rooms available for self-study when they are not occupied by tutorials or projects. The main faculty building houses an annex to the campus library. Its collection mainly con-sists of literature related to aerospace engineering. Students and staff members can also use the main library. In the course of �007, the library will move temporarily to another building, and the number of self-study places will increase to 60.

The pressure on the facilities is growing as a result of the increasing number of students. The occupation rate of the lecture rooms is high. It is often difficult to accommodate non-sched-uled activities such as extra lectures, master thesis presentations and symposia. The faculty has drawn up plans for a new building to create additional project rooms and self-study facilities. The laptop project for first-year students, which started in September �007 and gives first-year students the opportunity to buy a laptop computer at a discount price, had decreased the pres-sure on the computer rooms, but increased the need for self-study areas.

AssessmentDuring its site visit, the committee visited the faculty’s facilities. It was truly impressed by these facilities. In its opinion, the faculty is one of the best-equipped worldwide. It has observed that the facilities are fully integrated in the teaching activities and that students of both the bachelor and the master programmes use them intensively. This holds both for the laborato-ries and for the project rooms and the computer facilities. The committee established that the faculty continues to invest in its facilities, because it wants to maintain its position as one of the leading faculties in the world. At the time of the site visit, a new wind tunnel was under construction which, when finished, will provide new opportunities both for teaching and for research.

The committee assesses the material facilities available to staff and students of the bachelor and the master programme as excellent.

Bachelor degree course Luchtvaart‑ en Ruimtevaarttechniek: the committee’s assessment is excellent.Master degree course Aerospace Engineering: the committee’s assessment is excellent.


F16: Student support and guidance• The student support and guidance, as well as the information given to students are adequate for the pur-

pose of students’ progress.• The student support and guidance, as well as the information given to students meet the requirements of

the students.

DescriptionThe aim of student counselling in the bachelor programme is to support and facilitate the students’ progress and professional development. Before the official start of the courses, stu-dents attend an introductory meeting where a student counsellor provides practical informa-tion. All the first-year students, including the international students, are assigned to a mentor group. The emphasis of the mentor groups lies in the first half of the first year. Students are not obliged to participate in mentor group meetings, but in practice most of them do. The mentors are senior students who have been selected and trained. Every mentor coaches two groups of ten students each, which meet for social activities but also function within the study programme: Mathematics classes and Mechanics tutorials, for example, are taught in classes of �0 students, consisting of four mentor groups. The mentor groups serve as project groups as well. Aside from educational activities, mentors arrange meetings in which study planning, exam preparation and other practical matters are discussed. The faculty’s policy is that mentors should become more strongly involved in practical issues such as planning. From �006, men-tors discuss the results obtained in the first examination period (in October) with the students in their groups. The mentors themselves are coached by two staff members and a study coun-sellor. Evaluations show that students are positive about this mentor system.

First-year students receive a preliminary study advice in February or March (when the results of the exam period in January are available), based on the progress they have made, and a final study advice in July, which is based on the results up to the examination period in June. The advice is ‘negative’ (for students who have obtained less than ��.5 EC), ‘doubtful’ (for students with ��.5 EC or more, but less than 50 EC) or ‘positive’ (for students who have obtained 50 EC or more). Approximately 35%-�0% of the first-year students receive a ‘negative’ or ‘doubt-ful’ study advice. These students are invited to discuss their progress with the study counsel-lors, who sometimes suggest alternative study programmes, for example the degree programme Aeronautical Engineering (in Dutch: Luchtvaarttechnologie) offered by InHolland (an institu-tion for professional higher education). The advice is not binding, which means that students who receive a negative advice can continue their study. Experience has shown that students with a positive study advice hardly ever drop out after the first year, while many of the students who did not receive a positive advice do not complete the programme. The committee learnt that both staff members and students agree that the study advice after the first year should not be binding. They were much more positive about an alternative: a binding study advice after two years, which is ‘negative’ for those students who have not completed the first year of the programme.

After the first year of the bachelor programme, there are no fixed points for coaching and guid-ance, but students can make appointments with the study counsellors on their own initiative. Admission to the projects in the second and third years of the bachelor programme (which have entrance requirements) often leads to discussions about study progress and planning with student counsellors.


When it comes to the master programme, student counsellors provide support in acquiring scholarships and in solving personal and logistic problems. The number of student counsellors was recently increased, which immediately showed up positively in the Monitor Logistic Qual-ity. Aside from regular counselling topics, many questions posed to the student counsellors are related to the study programme and to transition arrangements. One of the counsellors is specialized in internationalization and exchange programmes. The internship officer, who sup-ports students in finding a company or organization for their internship, plays an important role in promoting studying abroad. The students of the master programme reported that the variant coordinators are also important for them: if they encounter any problems, they first discuss them with these coordinators.

In �006, the Study Guide was transformed into a handy agenda format. Students are not entirely happy with the new format. They have to get used to the fact that essential informa-tion such as the Teaching and Course Regulations are available on the faculty’s website or in Blackboard. The Digital Study Guide, available online as the Study Information System (SIS), contains descriptions of all the courses and programmes offered by Delft University of Tech-nology. The course and examination schedules are also available on the internet. Blackboard is used frequently for posting assignments, distributing course materials, making announce-ments and informing students about grades. In some courses, Blackboard is used to submit formative assessments. Education and Student Affairs has launched a student community in Blackboard, where relevant information about the programmes is posted. Surveys show that students are satisfied with the use of Blackboard. Practical announcements (e.g. about changes in the course schedule) are also displayed on the information screens in the hall of the faculty building. Important or urgent announcements are mailed to students (groups) as well.

Delft University of Technology uses the software package Volg+ to register results and study programmes and to monitor study progress. Since September �005, students have access to their individual study programme and their academic record via Blackboard. They can see, for instance, which exams they still have to pass to complete their bachelor programme.

Every year, the faculty organizes several information meetings, among them a meeting for first-year students, information sessions on minors for second-year students and information sessions on the master programme for third-year students (which introduce the variants within the master programme and provide general information about the programme). The Moni-tor Logistic Quality shows that students are generally positive about the information they receive.

AssessmentThe committee very much appreciates the activities undertaken to monitor and facilitate the progress of students in both the bachelor and the master programmes. Compared to the previ-ous assessment, the committee notes some clear and substantial improvements in the guidance and counselling of students. It is especially positive about the introduction of mentor groups and about the integration of the activities of these groups in the bachelor programme. It is con-vinced that the mentor groups create a kind of peer pressure which will have a positive effect on the study results. It would like to recommend that the faculty consider the extension of the mentor groups into the second year of the bachelor programme.

The committee noted that the guidance and counselling are less structured and prescriptive after the first year of the bachelor programme, which is in line with the students' develop-


ment; they are increasingly independent and familiar with their learning environment. When students have questions or face problems, they know to whom they can turn. The study coun-sellors, the teachers and (in the case of the master programme) the variant coordinators are easily accessible. The committee is positive about the appointment of staff members for clearly identified tasks (such as the internship coordinator) who have specific and very useful knowl-edge and expertise.

The committee is also positive about the measures the faculty has taken to provide students with information about the programmes, about their study progress and about opportunities and possibilities available to them when they complete their programme.

The committee therefore concludes that the student support and guidance are good, for both the bachelor and the master programmes.

The committee would like to suggest that the faculty give a preliminary study advice to first-year students as early as possible. It recommends the faculty consider the possibility of giving an initial advice before the examination period in January. The committee encourages the faculty to consider the introduction of a binding study advice after two years. The conditions for this study advice have to be clearly defined. The faculty could, for instance, decide that students who have not completed their first year after two years receive a negative study advice, which would force them to stop their study. The committee noted that there is broad support among staff and students for the introduction of such a scheme.


Assessment of the subject ‘Facilities and provisions’The committee concludes on the basis of its assessments of the relevant facets that the assessment for the subject ‘Facilities and provisions’ is satisfactory in the case of the bachelor degree course Luchtvaart- en Ruimtevaarttechniek and satisfactory in the case of the master degree course Aerospace Engineering.

1.2.5. Internal quality assurance

F17: Evaluation of resultsThe degree course is subject to a periodic review, which is partly based on verifiable targets.

DescriptionUntil a few years ago, the faculty did not have a structured and systematic approach to internal quality assurance. Since the appointment of a quality manager, new instruments for measur-ing quality have been defined and developed, and the process of quality assurance has been elaborated in more detail. According to the self-evaluation report, the system is still under development. A major deficiency is that it still lacks a quality assurance plan at the level of the faculty to formalize the quality processes and make the activities traceable. The faculty intends to implement such a plan in the course of �007.


The quality assurance system adopted by the faculty is based on a policy paper on the intro-duction of an integrated quality assurance system in Delft University of Technology. The sys-tem was first implemented for the bachelor programme. At the time of the site visit, the faculty implemented a similar system for the master programme. In the latter case, the procedures need to be adapted to the large number of courses and the variety of individual programmes. The Board of Studies agreed that the internal quality assurance for the master programme is in need of further improvement.

According to the self-evaluation report, the system of quality assurance includes review pro-cedures conducted by people who are not responsible for the programme (e.g. students, the Industrial Board, alumni). These reviews verify whether the objectives are being met and sup-port the effectiveness of the quality control programme, the system of routine activities used to measure and check the quality of various aspects of the programme. The system of quality assurance is based on four steps: definition (subject to be considered, measurable quantity of quality or indicator, target number), measurement (collecting the relevant information), anal-ysis (definition of the required actions) and improvement (carrying out the actions, providing feedback on the results). The system focuses on the primary process of the degree programmes, that of learning and teaching. The programmes are evaluated at four levels: the quality of the individual courses, the coherence between different courses, the final qualifications of the programme as a whole and, finally, the level of self-assessment and external assessment. At each level, the subsequent steps of definition, measurement, analysis and improvement are executed.

Students give their opinion and feedback in so-called quality control groups, which are organ-ized by the study association VSV Leonardo da Vinci. The outcomes of these response groups are discussed with the lecturers. The informal environment in the faculty encourages students to express any points of concern or suggestions for improvement directly to the teaching staff, the members of the study association or the study counsellors. These points are transferred to the faculty’s quality manager. In collaboration with the students and the principal lecturer, the quality manager establishes the best course of action, documents the measures for improve-ment and verifies their implementation and effect. In this way, informal quality assurance may lead to formal quality improvement.

During the site visit, the committee had the opportunity to study the second draft version of the faculty’s Quality Handbook, which contains protocols and procedures to be followed and various forms which will be used to evaluate, for example, information sessions and intern-ships. The handbook also contained a questionnaire which will be used for the evaluation of courses. The documentation had a series of tables listing targets to be attained, information sources and quality instruments to be used. The information reveals that the evaluations are linked to both internal and external indicators. Among the latter are the criteria and targets from the assessment framework for existing degree courses developed by the NVAO.

AssessmentThe committee has established that the faculty has seriously invested in the system of internal quality assurance and that it has adopted a structured, systematic and cyclic approach to the evaluation of courses and programmes. The committee appreciates the Quality Handbook, which provides clear descriptions of the procedures to be followed and the roles of the various actors involved in the evaluations. The recently appointed quality manager plays an important role in the development and implementation of the system, while the study association VSV


Leonardo da Vinci contributes significantly to the gathering of information and the dissemi-nation and implementation of the outcomes of the evaluations. The committee noted that the faculty was still working on the final details of the system at the time of the site visit, but that there was general agreement about the approach as such. It is positive about the inclusion of targets to be attained and the explicit connection to the NVAO’s assessment framework, which ensures that the information gathered is relevant and useful. The committee has noted that the faculty maintains a number of more informal procedures, such as the meetings of the quality control groups. It considers this informal part of the system a useful and worthwhile addition to the formal procedures.

The committee established that the new procedures for measuring, evaluating and enhanc-ing the quality of the degree programmes have already been implemented in the bachelor programme, but that the faculty has not yet completed the implementation of the system in the master programme. It therefore assesses the bachelor programme as ‘good’ and the master programme as ‘satisfactory’ when it comes to the evaluation of results.


F18: Measures to effect improvementThe results of this evaluation form the basis for measures that can be demonstrated to improve the course and that will contribute to reaching the targets.

DescriptionThe evaluations of the courses and the programme described above (formal and informal) result in measures and actions aimed at making improvements during or after the teaching period. When only minor modifications are required, the quality manager approaches the principal lecturer concerned directly to resolve the discrepancies. When more serious discrep-ancies are identified, the programme directors play an active role in the implementation of measures. The self-evaluation report lists a number of examples of measures taken to improve the quality of courses in the bachelor programme.

The pass rates of one of the second-year courses were consistently low (<30%). Feedback from the students (via the quality control groups and the questionnaires) indicated that the exams were mainly responsible for this: they consisted of a few highly complicated and interwoven questions. The matter was discussed with the lecturer. An additional exam was drawn up with a different structure: complicated questions were broken down into a number of smaller ques-tions of the same level. The pass rate for this exam rose to around 50%. The results of future exams for this course will be monitored to ensure consistency.

When a third-year minor course was taught for the first time, a number of problems arose. Individual students and the quality control groups expressed their worries and complaints. The main complaints were related to an unevenly distributed study load and inadequate organisa-tion. The students started the first assignment (out of seven) late because it took them longer to prepare than they had anticipated. Some of the assignments also took far more time to com-plete than anticipated. This led to an extreme peak in the study load. In a meeting with the principal lecturer, the quality manager and the programme director, it was decided to reduce the final assignments in number and size. For the coming year, actions have been defined to


improve the course further. This course will be monitored next year to check whether the problems have been permanently resolved.

AssessmentThe committee has established that the outcomes of the evaluations described above lead to concrete and demonstrable measures to improve the quality of the courses and programmes when necessary. It has studied various examples of measures taken to enhance the quality. It has noted that the evaluation in the quality control groups sometimes leads to immediate measures. It appreciates the efforts made by all parties involved to enhance the quality of the programmes.

As mentioned earlier, the new system of internal quality assurance is already operational in the bachelor programme, while it was being implemented in the master programme at the time of the site visit. The fact that the procedures used for the evaluation of the bachelor programme are further elaborated than those used for the master programme has consequences for the for-mulation and implementation of measures for improvement. The committee therefore assesses the bachelor programme as ‘good’ and the master programme as ‘satisfactory’ for the facet which relates to these measures.


F19: Involvement of staff, students, alumni and the professional fieldStaff, students, alumni and the professional field in which graduates of the course are to be employed are actively involved in the internal quality assurance.

DescriptionThe self-evaluation report lists the involvement of staff members, students and the professional field in the internal quality assurance. The lists show that the teaching staff and the students are involved in every level of the system of quality assurance system, while the professional field is primarily involved in the upper two levels.

Staff members have informal discussions with colleagues, student advisors, the faculty’s quality manager and the programme directors about the quality of the programmes on an almost daily basis. They are represented on the Board of Studies, which consists of five staff members and five student members and which confers with the programme director once a month. After every teaching period, the quality manager evaluates the questionnaires and the pass rates and discusses them with staff members if necessary. In addition, staff members evaluate the period with the quality control groups and identify points for improvement during these meetings. The outcomes of the surveys among students and the pass rates are also used in the Result and Development cycle.

Students give direct feedback to lecturers, student counsellors, the quality manager and the programme director relating to all aspects of the educational process on an almost daily basis. They are also represented on the Board of Studies and the Faculty Student Council (which has five members), which meet with the dean of the faculty once a month to discuss issues which are relevant for students. They complete the questionnaires and participate in the quality con-trol groups.


The professional field is represented on the Industrial Board, which meets with the dean of the faculty three times a year. The degree programmes are discussed in at least one meeting every year, which is also attended by the programme director. In addition, the professional field provides feedback via internships (and their evaluation). Graduates of the programmes are not directly involved in the system of internal quality assurance. Their feedback derives from the outcomes of the surveys conducted among alumni every five years.

During its visit, the committee had the opportunity to speak to the Industrial Board. It learnt that the board was established in �005 at the initiative of the dean of the faculty. Its members represent large companies (such as TNO) which consider the discipline covered by the pro-grammes to be important. The board functions as a kind of sounding board, which provides feedback and assistance to solve specific problems.

AssessmentThe committee has noted that both staff members and students are strongly involved in the internal quality assurance, and that they actively contribute to the improvement of the quality of the structure and contents of the degree programmes. The committee wants to mention the activities undertaken by the study association VSV Leonardo da Vinci explicitly. This assoca-tion plays a very active role in the evaluation of the programmes, among other things because it organizes the meetings of the quality control groups and disseminates the outcomes of the discussions in these groups. The committee greatly appreciates the commitment of both staff members and students.

The committee is also positive about the involvement of alumni and the professional field. It is particularly pleased with the establishment of the Industrial Board, which seriously consid-ers various issues which are relevant for the faculty, including the bachelor and master degree programmes. The committee has noticed that the faculty is aware of the added value of the advice and suggestions from the Industrial Board.

The committee therefore assesses the involvement of staff, students, alumni and the profes-sional field as ‘good’ for both the bachelor and the master programmes.

The committee would like to suggest that the Industrial Board is extended with a member from outside the Netherlands to reflect the international orientation of the programmes and the labour market for aerospace engineers.


Assessment of the subject ‘Internal quality assurance’The committee concludes on the basis of its assessments of the relevant facets that the assessment for the subject ‘Internal quality assurance’ is satisfactory in the case of the bachelor degree course Luchtvaart- en Ruimtevaarttechniek and satisfactory in the case of the master degree course Aerospace Engineering.


1.2.6. Results

F20: Level that has been achievedThe final qualifications that have been achieved correspond to the targets set for the final qualifications in level, orientation and domain-specific requirements.

DescriptionAccording to the self-evaluation report, the Design Synthesis Exercise gives a good indication of the levels of knowledge, skills and attitude that are achieved in the bachelor programme. The assessment of the Design Synthesis Exercise relates directly to the final qualifications of the programme. In evaluations, students confirm the great learning effects with respect to designing, integrating, synthesizing, applying management techniques and cooperating in a multidisciplinary team. Because students who have completed the bachelor programme do not enter the labour market and because the amount of information about the achievements of bachelor graduates in their master programmes is still limited, it is difficult to give a proper answer to the question of whether graduates of the bachelor programme have really acquired the final qualifications.

The self-evaluation report states that it is equally difficult to decide whether graduates of the master programme have actually acquired the final qualifications, because the number of students who have completed this programme is still limited. Since the final qualifications of the master programme more or less equal those of the five-year programme, conclusions about the level that has been achieved in the old programme can be transferred to the master programme.

The most important qualifications of the graduates of the five-year programme mentioned by national and international references are their broad but solid level of knowledge of engineer-ing sciences (aerospace), their ability to apply this knowledge in a different context and their teamwork skills. Contacts in industry in the Netherlands (members of the Industrial Board), in Europe (Airbus, Eurocopter, ESA, Astrium) and in the USA (Boeing, Lockheed-Martin) have repeatedly shown a strong interest in the students for internships or thesis projects, or as employees. Because the bachelor programme provides the foundations for these qualifica-tions, the faculty is confident that the results of the bachelor programme comply with its final qualifications.

The survey among graduates conducted in the summer of �005 showed that almost all gradu-ates are employed (99%) and that only 0.�% of them was involuntarily unemployed at the time of the survey. Of the graduates �0% are employed in the aerospace industry; 1�% work abroad; ��% indicate that a degree in aerospace engineering is a prerequisite for their current job, while almost 68% indicate that an engineering degree is required for their current posi-tion. Some 50% of the graduates are employed as managers, 33% as engineering specialists and 17% as a combination of manager and engineer.

The committee had the opportunity to talk to a group of graduates of the master programme. These graduates reported that they were well prepared for entering the labour market and that their positions were directly related to the programme they had followed. The positions avail-able to graduates are diverse. Two of the graduates had started their own company, one of them was a teacher at an institution for higher professional education. The graduates informed the committee that the labour market is very good and that they had no serious problems finding


an appropriate position. They especially value the general technical skills they have acquired during their studies. These skills enable them to find positions which are not in the field of aerospace engineering, but in other, adjacent areas. They reported that the attention paid to personal skills was rather limited. They had the opportunity to follow courses which focused on these skills, but they were not made aware of the importance of these courses for their future careers.

Prior to the site visit, each member of the committee studied one Design Synthesis Exercise report and one master thesis. The committee was thus able to assess the level which individual students have reached at the end of their studies.

AssessmentThe committee has noted that most, if not all, of the graduates of the bachelor programme enter the corresponding master programme. These students are well prepared to follow the master programme. The committee did not receive any information which indicates that the connection between the bachelor programme and the master programme is problematic. This is undoubtedly due to the fact that the current programmes are directly derived from their predecessor, the single five-year programme in aerospace engineering.

The committee has established that the graduates of the master programme are very well pre-pared for a career inside or outside the academic world. Their labour market perspectives are excellent.

The committee feels that the quality of the Design Synthesis Exercise reports it has studied is at least good and that the quality of the master theses is excellent. The bachelor reports show that the students went through all the steps in the design process and that they were well able to follow a systematic approach and use the appropriate methods. In a few cases, the Design Synthesis Exercise reports lacked depth and did not fulfil the formal requirements (the problem statement was not clearly delineated, the discussion of the results of the research undertaken was somewhat disappointing, or the report was not ready for publication). The committee is aware, however, that students have only a limited amount of time available for the design project and that it is also important that the projects are finished within the time allocated for them. It got the impression that some of the projects are perhaps too ambitious, but the students cannot be blamed for that. The members of the committee more or less agreed with the marks given for the reports, their assessment of the reports differed only marginally from that by the project tutors. The committee was favourably impressed by the quality of the mas-ter theses. They reveal that students of the master programme are very well able to conduct research at a high level and with considerable depth, to develop a good and appropriate design for the problem to be dealt with, to describe and elaborate original problems and to carry out complicated and difficult tests. Again, the committee’s assessment of the final theses differed only marginally from the marks given by the thesis supervisors.

The committee therefore concludes that the level that has been achieved by students of the bachelor programme is good, while the level achieved by students of the master programme is excellent.

Bachelor degree course Luchtvaart‑ en Ruimtevaarttechniek: the committee’s assessment is good.Master degree course Aerospace Engineering: the committee’s assessment is excellent.


F21: Success ratesTo measure the success rates, target figures have been set in comparison with relevant other degree courses.The success rates meet these targets.

DescriptionThe faculty has defined explicit target figures for the success rates of the bachelor programme which have been laid down in the �006-�009 Multi-Year Plan. These figures are based on Delft University of Technology's aim to increase the output rates of the programmes. The target fig-ures are: 50% of the students has completed the first year of the programme after one year; 70% has completed the first year of the programme after two years; �5% has completed the bachelor programme as a whole after three years; 50% has completed the bachelor programme after four years; and, finally, 70% has completed the bachelor programme after five years.

A table in the self-evaluation report shows the propaedeutic success rates for students as a function of time. The propaedeutic success rate after one year of study (�0%–�5%) is substan-tially below the target value of 50%. The propaedeutic success rate after two years is between 35% and 50% and seems to be declining, whereas the target value is 70%. The self-evaluation report states that the negative trend in the last two years is a consequence of the status of the propaedeutic degree. Many students administer the propaedeutic diploma only when they need it to obtain their bachelor degree.

Approximately �0% of the first-year students receive a negative study advice, while an average of 80% of a cohort continues their studies. An analysis of the performance of the cohort which started in �001 shows that students with a negative study advice drop out at a significantly faster rate than those who received ‘doubtful’ or ‘positive’. This implies that the study advice is a good predictor of the students’ performance, but the late dropout is perceived as a relatively low progress rate.

According to the staff members, the drop-out rates of the programmes have been more or less the same for a long time. It is unavoidable that some of the students discover that the pro-gramme falls short of their expectations, that it is too difficult, or that they are not engineers after all. At the same time, students find it hard to draw the conclusion that it is better for them to leave the programme. Some of the staff members suggested that the university should provide an alternative for some of the students who are not suitable for the programme in aerospace engineering and develop a programme in aviation business.

In order to increase the P-in-1 rate (the number of students who have completed their first year in one year), the faculty introduced a pilot project Practical Flight Training in �005 as a BSc Honours Track which could only be followed by students who had completed their propaedeutic examination after one year. This measure has not led to a significant increase of the P-in-1 success rate for the �005-�006 cohort. Another measure which aims at stimulating more students to study in accordance with the scheduled programme is the introduction of the requirement that students must have obtained at least �� EC from the programme of the first year before they can be admitted to projects and examinations in the second year. The decision of the Executive Board of Delft University of Technology to introduce a BSc-before-MSc policy which first applies to the cohort which started in �007 should stimulate a more regular study progress. One of the explicit aims of the BSc Curriculum Innovation Project is to improve the success rate of the propaedeutic year.


According to the self-evaluation report, it is difficult to assess the success rate of the master programme, which started in �00� and has undergone significant changes since then. Initially, many students who had not completed their bachelor programme enrolled in the master pro-gramme at an early stage, while other students decided to enrol just before the start of their final thesis work. The faculty introduced formal entrance requirements for the master pro-gramme in �005, when the variants were introduced. These requirements imply, among other things, that students who have not completed their Design Synthesis Exercise are not admitted to the master programme.

The self-evaluation report contains a table which refers to the undivided, five-year programme. It reveals that the average time taken to complete the five-year programme was approximately seven years. Information relating to the success rate of the master programme is not yet avail-able. It is clear, however, that many students extend their internship, which is scheduled to last twelve weeks, to six months. In addition, many students spend more time on their final thesis work. The faculty has reserved a period of seven months for the final thesis, but students usu-ally spend up to twelve months on their thesis work. The staff members reported that students who carry out their final thesis work in industry generally manage to complete their thesis within the set time.

The management of the master programme needs to ensure that it is possible for students who wish to complete the programme within the allocated period to do so. This is especially relevant for the increasing number of students from outside the Netherlands, who often have temporary visas for their stay in the Netherlands or limited funding which does not allow for a longer stay.

AssessmentThe committee noted that the faculty has defined target figures for the success rates of the bachelor programme, but that the actual success rates are significantly lower than the target figures. The faculty has not set target figures for the master programme.

The committee has also observed that the faculty is convinced that the success rates of the bachelor programme have to be improved and that it has undertaken various attempts to achieve this, which have not had the desired effects. It is not clear yet whether new initiatives (such as the BSc-before-MSc policy) will lead to a substantial improvement of the success rates of the bachelor programme.

As mentioned earlier, the committee has concluded that it is in practice very difficult to com-plete the master programme in two years. It is aware that the master programme started very recently and that it is still too early to draw firm conclusions about its success rates. In its opin-ion, the average time needed to complete the undivided, five-year programme was too long. The committee has noticed that the faculty increasingly acknowledges that the time spent on the internship and the final thesis work should be limited. It is fully aware of the potential conflict between the study duration and the quality of the final thesis work, but it neverthe-less urges the faculty to look seriously into measures aimed at shortening the time spent on the internship and the final thesis. Several observations (cf. F7) indicate that it is possible to complete the thesis in less time without affecting its quality.

The committee assesses the success rates of both the bachelor and the master programme as ‘satisfactory’, and it recommends the faculty continue its attempts to improve them.



Assessment of the subject ‘Results’The committee concludes on the basis of its assessments of the relevant facets that the assessment for the subject ‘Results’ is satisfactory in the case of the bachelor degree course Luchtvaart- en Ruimtevaarttechniek and satisfactory in the case of the master degree course Aerospace Engineering.


Overview of the assessment by the committee

Bachelor degree course Luchtvaart- en Ruimtevaarttechniek:

Subject Score Facet Score1. Aims and objectives of the degree course

Satisfactory 1. Domain-specific requirements Good�. Level Satisfactory3. Orientation Satisfactory

�. Programme Satisfactory �. Requirements Good5. Relationship between aims and objectives and contents of the programme

Satisfactory

6. Coherence of the programme Satisfactory7. Study load Satisfactory8. Intake Satisfactory9. Duration Complies10. Coordination of structure and contents of the degree

Good

11. Assessments and examinations Satisfactory3. Deployment of staff

Satisfactory 1�. Requirements for University Good13. Quantity of staff Satisfactory1�. Quality of staff Good

�. Facilities and provisions

Satisfactory 15. Material facilities Excellent16. Student support and guidance Good

5. Internal quality assurance

Satisfactory 17. Evaluation of results Good18. Measures to effect improvement Good19. Involvement of staff, students, alumni and the professional field

Good

6. Results Satisfactory �0. Level that has been achieved Good�1. Results of teaching Satisfactory

Overall assessment by the committee of the bachelor degree course Luchtvaart- en RuimtevaarttechniekThe committee concludes, on the basis of its assessments of the subjects and facets from the assessment framework, that the bachelor degree course Luchtvaart‑ en Ruimtevaarttechniek fulfils the quality requirements which are a condition for accreditation.


Master degree course Aerospace Engineering:

Subject Score Facet Score1. Aims and objectives of the degree course

Satisfactory 1. Domain-specific requirements Good�. Level Satisfactory3. Orientation Satisfactory

�. Programme Satisfactory �. Requirements Good5. Relationship between aims and objectives and contents of the programme

Good

6. Coherence of the programme Good7. Study load Satisfactory8. Intake Good9. Duration Complies10. Coordination of structure and contents of the degree

Satisfactory

11. Assessments and examinations Satisfactory3. Deployment of staff

Satisfactory 1�. Requirements for University Good13. Quantity of staff Satisfactory1�. Quality of staff Good

�. Facilities and provisions

Satisfactory 15. Material facilities Excellent16. Student support and guidance Good

5. Internal quality assurance

Satisfactory 17. Evaluation of results Satisfactory18. Measures to effect improvement Satisfactory19. Involvement of staff, students, alumni and the professional field

Good

6. Results Satisfactory �0. Level that has been achieved Excellent�1. Results of teaching Satisfactory

Overall assessment by the committee of the master degree course Aerospace EngineeringThe committee concludes, on the basis of its assessments of the subjects and facets from the assessment framework, that the master degree course Aerospace Engineering fulfils the quality requirements which are a condition for accreditation.


APPENDICES


Appendix A: Curricula vitae of the members of the assessment committee

Professor D.H. van CampenDick van Campen studied at the Delft University of Technology, gained his master degree in Mechanical Engineering and was awarded a PhD degree in 197�. From 197� to 1980 he was Senior Lecturer in Engineering Mechanics at Twente University, and full professor from 1980 to 198�. From 198� onwards he has been full Professor in Engineering Mechanics at Eindhoven University of Technology. He was Dean of the Faculty of Mechanical Engineer-ing at Eindhoven University of Technology from 1990 till 199� and again held that position from �000 until May �007. From 1997 to �000 he was Scientific Director of the Netherlands Research School (graduate school) on Engineering Mechanics, and from �000 until May �007 he was Chairman of its Board. He was chairman of several international conferences and was appointed honorary professor of South West Jiaotong University, Chengdu, China, in 1995. He is author/co-author of more than 175 publications in the international literature. He sat on several editorial boards. Since �000 he holds the position of Secretary-General of the Inter-national Union of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics. He is currently contributing editor of the Journal on Multibody System Dynamics and a member of the advisory board of Nonlinear Dynamics. He was a member of the Peer Review Committee for the Faculties of Mechanical Engineering of the Technical Universities in Niedersachsen (Germany) in 1999.

Professor J.D. Anderson, Jr.John Anderson, Jr. (1937) attended the University of Florida, graduating in 1959 with high honors and a Bachelor of Aeronautical Engineering degree. From 1959 to 196�, he was a lieu-tenant and task scientist at the Aerospace Research Laboratory at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. From 196� to 1966, he attended Ohio State University under the National Science Foundation and NASA Fellowships, graduating with a PhD in Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering. In 1966, he joined the US Naval Ordnance Laboratory as Chief of the Hyper-sonic Group. In 1973, he became Chairman of the Department of Aerospace Engineering at the University of Maryland, and since 1980 has been Professor of Aerospace Engineering at Maryland. In 198�, he was designated a Distinguished Scholar/Teacher by the University. During 1986-87, while on sabbatical from the university, Dr. Anderson occupied the Charles Lindbergh chair at the National Air and Space Museum of the Smithsonian Institution. He continued with the Museum one day each week as their Special Assistant for Aerodynamics, doing research and writing a book on the history of aerodynamics. In addition to his posi-tion as professor of aerospace engineering, in 1993 he was made a full faculty member of the Committee for the History and Philosophy of Science and in 1996 an affiliate member of the History Department at the University of Maryland. In 1996 he became the Glenn L. Martin Distinguished Professor for Education in Aerospace Engineering. In 1999 he retired from the University of Maryland and was appointed professor emeritus. He is currently the Curator for Aerodynamics at the National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution.

Professor F. Bernelli ZazzeraFranco Bernelli Zazzera (1960) obtained a degree in Aeronautical Engineering at Politecnico di Milano in the academic year 198�/85 with full marks (100/100), with a thesis on: "Meth-ods for the identification of the stability derivatives and the flutter characteristics of aircrafts by means of flight tests". In 198� and 1985 he spent two training periods of three months each, one at Pilatus Aircraft Ltd and the other at Aermacchi SpA. The main topic of these work placements was the study and numerical implementation of flight test analysis meth-


ods. After being awarded the MS degree ("laurea") he was granted two research fellowships from Fondazione Ing. Paolo Foresio, spent at the Dipartimento di Ingegneria Aerospaziale of Politecnico di Milano for the research studies: "Modelling and Control of Large Space Struc-tures" and "Active Control of Large Space Structures". He was awarded the 1987/88 study prize from "Rotary Club Milano San Babila". In 1990 he successfully completed his PhD in Aerospace Engineering, with the dissertation on: "Modeling and active control of aerospace dynamic systems". In November 199� he became associate professor at Politecnico di Milano, and in March �001 full professor, where he currently teaches and performs research in the fields of space flight mechanics and aerospace control systems. He is currently deputy Dean of the Faculty of Industrial Engineering at Politecnico di Milano, and Erasmus co-ordinator for the Aerospace Engineering degree.

Professor K. BrießKlaus Brieß studied at the Ilmenau University of Technology and obtained his degree in Infor-mation Engineering in 198� and the academic degree Dr.-Ing. in Information Engineering in 1987. Since 1989 he has worked in the field of space technology. From 1989 to 1990 he was involved in the preparation of a camera experiment for the Russian Mars-96 mission. In 199� he joined the Institute of Space Sensor Technology of German Aerospace Center DLR and worked as a system engineer in the preparation of several space instruments for earth remote sensing and planetary expolration. He held leading positions within the DLR as section head. From 1996 to �003 he was the project leader of the DLR small satellite mission “BIRD”. Since �000 he has given a lecture course at the Berlin University of Technology. In �003 he became Professor for Astronautics at the Berlin University of Technology. Klaus Brieß is a member of the International Academy of Astronautics (IAA), involved in several IAA study groups and in the programme committee of the IAA small satellite symposium; he is head of the section “Space Systems” of the German Aerospace Society “Lilienthal-Oberth e.V.”, co-founder of the “Space Initiative Berlin-Brandenburg (RIBB)” and a member of “Gesellschaft zur Förderung des akademischen Nachwuchses”. Additionally, he has been a peer review board member for Space Engineering at EC, DGXII and a member of the peer review committee for the evalu-ation of the Faculty of Informatics at Humboldt University Berlin (�000). He is co-author/author of more than 90 international publications and 3 books.

M. Haagsma BScMaarten Haagsma (198�) is preparing his master thesis for his MSc degree in Mechanical Engineering, ‘Design, Production and Management’ at the University of Twente in The Neth-erlands, scheduled to be finishedin the spring of �008. Accordingly, he is designing a ‘program for the quotation process and mould budgeting’ for a Dutch SME in the plastic processing industry. Previously, he was in Auckland, New Zealand, for an internship, “Development of a Technology Strategy”, within a furniture-producing SME. Just before starting his MSc degree he was an educational officer for “W.S.G. Isaac Newton”, a study association with 700 members, for one year full-time. In �005, he received his BSc degree in Mechanical Engi-neering from the University of Twente. During his study Maarten has been a member of the faculty committee for Engineering Technology and a member of the educational committee for Mechanical Engineering for over three years. In �003 Maarten joined the Summer School of the University of Dortmund in Germany. In the same year he designed a crank axle lock, the Havon Lock, along with a fellow student. The design was awarded the first prize for ‘the unstealable bike’ by the technical journal De Ingenieur.


Professor D.K. HolgerDavid K. Holger received his BS, MS, and PhD degrees in Aerospace Engineering from the University of Minnesota in 1970, 1971, and 197�, respectively. He was a Churchill Scholar at Cambridge University during the 1971–197� academic year and received a Certificate for Post-Graduate Research in Engineering from Cambridge in 197�. He joined the Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics at ISU in 197� and was promoted to professor in 198�. He served as Chair of the Department of Aerospace Engineering and Engineering Mechan-ics (1990-1995) and as Associate Dean for Academic Programs and Budget of the College of Engineering (1995-�00�). In �00� he was named Associate Provost for Academic Programs and Dean of the Graduate College. His areas of professional expertise are aeroacoustics and noise control. He and his students have published numerous papers on various aspects of noise control, and he is the co-holder of three US patents. He served as editor-in-chief of Noise Control Engineering Journal from 1996 through �00�. In 1997, he was appointed to the Engi-neering Accreditation Commission as a representative from AIAA. Additionally, he has served as Chair of the Engineering Accreditation Commission of ABET’s Criteria Committee from 1999 through �00�, as a member of the EAC Executive Committee from �001 to �006, as Chair of the EAC in �00�-�005, and as Chair of the ABET Accreditation Council from �005-�007. He is a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, a Fellow of ABET, and an Associate Fellow of the AIAA. He served a two-year term as Chairman of the Aerospace Department Chair’s Association and as a member of the Aeroacoustics Technical Committee of the AIAA, the Academic Affairs Committee, and the Education Series Publica-tions Advisory Board of AIAA, as well as the Technical Committee on Noise of the Acoustical Society of America. He was the technical chair for Noise Con �003 and co-president of Inter-Noise �006. He also served as chair of the AIAA Academic Affairs Committee (1998–�003), on the Board of Directors of the Institute of Noise Control Engineering (1998–�001), and is currently a member of the International Institute of Noise Control Engineering Board of Directors, the ABET Board of Directors and the International Activities Council of ABET.

Prof. W.H.F.W. WijnenWynand Wijnen (193�) started his career at the University of Groningen as staff member of the Psychological Institute ‘Heymans’ and as head of the Centre for Research of Scientific Education (in Dutch: Centrum voor Onderzoek van het Wetenschappelijk Onderwijs). In 1971, he obtained a PhD degree. His thesis described a method for determining the distinction between an insufficient and a sufficient score for tests. From 1973 until 1977, he was Head of the Department of Development and Research of Education of the University of Maastricht. Since 1977, he has been a professor at that university, most recently in Educational Sciences. He was Rector Magnificus of the University of Maastricht from 1979 until 198�. He was Chair of the National Committee on Quality and Feasibility (in Dutch: Kwaliteit en Studeer‑baarheid) and participated in various assessment committees, both as chair and as committee member.

S. LooijengaSietze Looijenga (1963) studied Dutch language and literature at the University of Groningen. After his graduation in 1988, he held several positions within that same university. He worked, among other things, as manager of four departments at the Faculty of Arts and as coordinator of the graduate school BCN (Behavioural and Cognitive Neurosciences). From March 1999 until November �001, he worked for the Free University of Berlin as manager of the The-matic Network Project in the area of Languages, a European co-operation project in which approximately 100 institutions of higher education from all over Europe participated. From


November �001 until March �003, he was head of the ICT team of the Language Centre of the University of Ghent. From March �003 until January �008, he held a position as project coordinator in quality assurance, initially as a staff member of the VSNU (the Association of Universities in the Netherlands), later as a staff member of QANU.


Appendix B: Programme for the site visit to Delft University of Technology

Day 1: First day of the site visit (Monday 15 October 2007)08:50 – 09:00 Words of welcome by the dean of the faculty, the programme director and

others09:00 – 10:00 Committee meeting, preview of documentation made available by the

faculty10:00 – 11:00 Discussion with those responsible for the content of the self-assessment

reports (dean of the faculty, programme director and others)11:00 – 11:�5 Discussion with students enrolled in the BSc programme11:�5 – 1�:30 Discussion with students enrolled in the MSc programme1�:30 – 13:30 Lunch break13:30 – 1�:15 Discussion with lecturers of the BSc programme1�:15 – 15:00 Discussion with lecturers of the MSc programme15:00 – 15:30 Discussion with members of BSc curriculum innovation team15:30 – 16:30 Tour of facilities/‘office hour’ (private discussions with the committee)16:30 – 17:00 Discussion with recent graduates of the ‘doctoraal’ and/or MSc programmes17:00 – 17:30 Discussion with members of the Industrial Board17:30 End of discussions on day 119:30 – �1:30 Dinner with representatives of faculty and degree programmes

Day 2: Second day of the site visit (Tuesday 16 October 2007)09:00 – 09:30 Discussion with student members of the Education Committee and other

students involved in quality assurance09:30 – 10:00 Discussion with staff members of the Education Committee 10:00 – 10:�5 Discussion with Board of Examiners and student counselors10:�5 – 11:15 Committee meeting, preparation of discussion with the dean and other

members of the management team11:15 – 1�:15 Final discussion with the dean and other members of the management team1�:15 – 13:00 Lunch break13:00 – 16:00 Committee meeting to discuss assessment of the BSc and MSc programmes16:00 – 16:30 Presentation of preliminary findings by the chairman of the committee16:30 – 17:00 Reception, end of site visit

Aerospace Engineering - NVAO

Documents

Transcript of Aerospace Engineering - NVAO