The posts to this thread have been simultaneously thought provoking and frustrating. This topic deserves to be a panel discussion or a seminar. A couple of references to ABET have been made that reveal what may well be a fundamental misunderstanding about its role in engineering education in general and what programs must do to remain in business, including being "accredited." The last three paragraphs of this post pertain to innovation, whereas the three paragraphs below this point pertain to ABET and accreditation.
I know something about ABET; however, this post is my opinion and not necessarily that of ABET or its Engineering Accreditation Commission. My career has been 100% practitioner with large consulting companies, plus <1/2% adjunct faculty member. I have been involved with ABET since the mid-1990s as a program evaluator for geological engineering programs, and from 2007 to 2015 as a member of Engineering Accreditation Commission (EAC) representing the Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration (SME-AIME). Since 2015, I have served on the Executive Committee of EAC, the members of which are supposed to represent the EAC as a whole, even though we all come from specific professional societies that are committed to quality assurance in engineering education. EAC is composed of representatives of ABET's member societies that have formal leadership in the review of specific undergraduate or master's level engineering programs for initial or renewing accreditation. In 2005, ABET stopped using the words that became ABET's logo when the accreditation commission in applied and natural sciences was added to commissions in engineering, engineering technology, and computing. All things ABET are publicly available at abet.org. ABET's Accreditation process is ISO9001:2015 certified.
I'm not an academician. I have learned through EAC visits to numerous colleges and universities that the first level of accreditation that must be met is at the institution level. In fact, in order for programs at an institution to be eligible for accreditation through one of ABET's commissions, the institution must have "governmental, national, or regional recognition to confer degrees" (Policy I.C.2). In the U.S., this is done at the regional level. It is my understanding that the general education requirements for institutions are set by this level of accreditation. Furthermore, these requirements, in conjunction with state legislative pressure for undergraduate degrees to be conferred in four years, has squeezed engineering programs to give up engineering content to remain in business because that is what they can control.
"Programs accredited by EAC are those leading to the professional practice of engineering" (Policy I.C.3.c). ABET's commissions accredit programs, not departments or institutions, and have criteria that establishes curricular content of programs in general terms. About 20 years ago, ABET modified its criteria for undergraduate programs away from bean counting and to student outcomes. ABET's requirements for baccalaureate-level degree programs are eight general criteria, five of which are common to all four of ABET's commissions (1. Students; 2. Program Educational Objectives; 4. Continuous Improvement; 7. Facilities, and 8. Institutional Support). The other three general criteria are unique to each commission (3. Student Outcomes; 5. Curriculum; and 6. Faculty). Program-specific requirements within areas of specialization are supplemental to ABET's general criteria; EAC program-specific criteria are limited to 1. Curriculum and 2. Faculty. Program criteria for civil and similarly named engineering programs were developed by ASCE, proposed to the EAC Criteria Committee, which is composed of one representative from each of EAC's member societies, approved by the EAC, accepted by ABET's Engineering Area Delegation, and approved by ABET's Board of Delegates and Board of Directors.
The word 'innovation' does not appear in the EAC general criteria or in the program-specific criteria for any engineering program. A nine-year process to review and improve the student outcomes criterion concluded this year and will be implemented starting with the 2019-20 accreditation cycle. This criterion requires engineering programs to have student outcomes that support its program educational objectives, and recognizes that attainment of the student outcomes prepares graduates to enter the professional practice of engineering. Student outcomes consist of seven abilities that graduates must attain, with recognition that programs may wish to include one or more additional student outcomes. The continuous improvement criterion requires programs to assess and evaluate the extent to which student outcomes are being attained, so the opportunity to add a student outcome comes with a burden that it be assessed. In my mind, "innovation" is similar to "sustainability"; it rolls off the tongue, but takes on different meaning in different context. Therefore, if you are tempted to get a civil engineering program to add an "innovation" student outcome, the program faculty members will be required to assess the degree to which graduates have attained that outcome.
I can see lots of innovation opportunities in EAC's student outcomes (1) through (7) without adding any words (note that the word 'sustainability' does not appear but the elements of engineering sustainability are present as a group of words):
- an ability to identify, formulate, and solve complex engineering problems by applying principles of engineering, science, and mathematics.
- an ability to apply engineering design to produce solutions that meet specified needs with consideration of public health, safety, and welfare, as well as global, cultural, social, environmental, and economic factors.
- an ability to communicate effectively with a range of audiences.
- an ability to recognize ethical and professional responsibilities in engineering situations and make informed judgments, which must consider the impact of engineering solutions in global, economic, environmental, and societal contexts.
- an ability to function effectively on a team whose members together provide leadership, create a collaborative and inclusive environment, establish goals, plan tasks, and meet objectives.
- an ability to develop and conduct appropriate experimentation, analyze and interpret data, and use engineering judgment to draw conclusions.
- an ability to acquire and apply new knowledge as needed, using appropriate learning strategies.
Don't be a ninja engineer. Some comments in this "innovation" thread mentioned guest lectures on innovative topics. Such guest lectures by practicing civil engineers are wonderful for students and faculty, and add a dimension to undergraduate education that is powerful. However, to show up, give a stimulating lecture, and then disappear is my 'ninja' analogy. Consider becoming an EAC program evaluator for ASCE -- you would serve the needs of the profession by reviewing programs against the EAC general criteria and the civil engineering program-specific criteria. Consider becoming a program- or department-level industrial advisory board member in your local area or with your Alma Mater program. You would be able to contribute to the program educational objectives (EAC criterion 2) to ensure that "they remain consistent with the institutional mission, the program's constituents, and [the EAC] criteria." If program constituents want innovation, then you can help get that reflected in the program educational objectives, which the student outcomes must support, but not necessarily in a way that must be assessed as an independent student outcome. This role would be doubly powerful if you also were an EAC program evaluator, because you would understand the burdens that come with the opportunities. Once you get accustomed to conducting EAC accreditation evaluations for civil engineering programs, make it known to ASCE that you would be willing to represent ASCE as one of its 12 representatives on the EAC (currently 4 are from industry) for a 5-year term. The EAC would like to have nearly even split between commissioners from universities and from industry (consulting companies, design companies, and government agencies), but overall EAC industry representation is approximated by ASCE's numbers.
ABET is a quality assurance organization, not a regulatory body. ABET began as the educational standard used by state licensing boards in the United States for engineers seeking P.E. licenses. ABET's commissioners and program evaluators volunteer through professional societies to perform peer-review of accredited programs against published criteria for quality assurance purposes. ABET's commissions do not compare or rank programs; programs voluntarily seek ABET accreditation as part of their own quality assurance efforts.
------------------------------
Jeffrey Keaton Ph.D., P.E., D.GE, P.G., ENV SP, F.ASCE
Principal Engineering Geologist
Amec Foster Wheeler
Los Angeles CA
(323) 889-5316
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 10-09-2018 10:32
From: Stephanie Slocum
Subject: How would you innovate engineering education?
We all know engineering education needs to be reformed. There's a disconnect between research funding at large institutions and what students need to learn to succeed in the workplace. The work we do has become more complex, which would seem to require more education or training. At the same time, at universities, there is a push towards 4 year undergrad engineering programs (mine was 5) due to the ever-increasing cost of higher education.
If you could wave a magic wand, how would you reform engineering education? Would you revamp the current system? Require a master's degree? Make your specific discipline (in my case structural) a professional degree after the initial 4 year undergrad? Provide more on-the-job training?
P.S. This question is intended to spark open discussion regarding how we as a profession can move forward. It is not intended to assign blame to educators, practitioners, employers, or students, who are all doing their best to work within the system we have (and all have limited funds/resources). Please keep this in mind when responding.
------------------------------
Stephanie Slocum P.E., M.ASCE
Founder
Engineers Rising LLC
www.engineersrising.com
------------------------------