By Ernest T. Smerdon
ABET
SHOULD LIFT ITS RESTRICTION AGAINST
ACCREDITING BOTH UNDERGRADUATE AND
MASTER'S PROGRAMS AT THE SAME
SCHOOL.
The 2004 report of the National
Academy of Engineering entitled,
"The Engineer of 2020 –
Visions of Engineering in the New
Century," documents today's
challenges to the engineering profession.
The engineer must be better prepared
to be a leader in this new century
of rapid change and intense global
competition.
ABET Leadership Essential.
To address educational needs of
future engineers, we must engage
key players, such as the Accreditation
Board for Engineering and Technology
(ABET). ABET faces a blurring of
the disciplines and proliferation
of new programs with new titles.
ABET has adopted a new constitution
and bylaws and is updating rules
and procedures for its four accreditation
commissions. ABET should now review
its accreditation rules that may
inhibit engineering educational
reform.
ABET rules now prohibit the accreditation
of engineering programs of the same
name at both the bachelor's
and master's levels at an
institution. This prohibition is
unique to engineering; the other
three commissions of ABET do not
have such a restriction. This restriction
should be removed so that individual
programs can determine if it is
best for their students and graduates
to have both their baccalaureate-
and master's-level programs
accredited.
Time for Change. When
this prohibition was enacted in
the early 1980s, many engineering
deans justifiably did not want the
highly prescriptive ABET/EAC criteria
of that time to be applied to their
graduate programs. Possibly they
feared prescriptive criteria would
force their advanced level programs
into a ‘cookie cutter'
mold. However, graduate programs
have since proliferated and their
variations multiplied. Flexibility
for master's programs must
be sustained.
With current outcomes-based engineering
accreditation criteria, there is
little reason to fear cloning of
graduate programs. Now, programs
are encouraged to innovate in meeting
their institutional goals.
Cost Issue. The concern
that dual level accreditation will
impose a significant additional
overhead cost to the institution
is legitimate. But those costs can
be much less than twice the costs
of the current single level accreditation
if certain minor changes are made
in accreditation procedures.
First, one program evaluator would
be used for both the basic and the
advanced level programs. Much overlap
exists in the undergraduate and
graduate faculties, facilities,
and administration. Institutional
resources such as libraries and
computer facilities are the same.
One person, properly trained, could
evaluate both programs with perhaps
an additional half day on-site,
or one day for large programs. There
will only be one meeting with the
university officials, so the burden
on the institutional leaders'
time will not increase.
Second, there would be significant
overlap between the undergraduate
and graduate self-study documents,
and they could be combined. The
self-studies' form and content
would be similar because both programs
would utilize outcomes-based assessments.
With good coordination, the financial
and personnel resources should not
increase that much.
Engineering departments that desire
to have their basic and advanced
level programs both accredited to
achieve their educational objectives
should be permitted to do so. However,
that action must be voluntary and
remain an institutional decision.
Ernest T. Smerdon is Dean Emeritus
at the U. of Arizona and ASEE Past
President. Supporting review of
the prohibition against dual level
accreditation are: Wm. Wulf of NAE;
Stephen Director, of U. of Michigan;
Jim Tien of RPI; Lyle Feisel of
SUNY Binghamton retired; Walt Laity,
Pacific NW Natl. Lab; and Pete Carrato
of Bechtel Corp.. All are actively
involved in engineering education
reform.
|