ABET to accredit professional MS degrees

College Majors Engineering Majors
1

<p>ABET, the accrediting body for US engineering programs, has [url=<a href="http://www.abet.org/dual.shtml%5Dannounced%5B/url"&gt;http://www.abet.org/dual.shtml]announced[/url&lt;/a&gt;] that it will begin "dual-level" accreditation, beginning in 2009-2010. In other words, it will be possible for an engineering department to offer both an ABET-accredited professional BS degree, and an ABET-accredited professional MS degree.</p>

<p>Historically, ABET would only accredit one degree program in any discipline. This was normally the BS degree, which has traditionally been the first professional degree for engineers. The MS degree was rarely accredited, except at a few graduate-only institutions.</p>

<p>Under the new system, professional MS degrees should become much more common. It will likely become normal to pursue "pre-engineering" at the undergraduate level, just as it is normal to pursue "pre-law", "pre-med", or "pre-architecture". As a prospective engineer, you could major in anything as an undergraduate, as long as you met certain basic science and math requirements. Then you would get specialized engineering training, and a professional degree, in graduate school. </p>

<p>The traditional 4-year professional BS option won't go away. However, it is possible that some schools may choose to drop their professional BS programs, and promote the BA + MS route instead. </p>

<p>The American Society of Civil Engineers, American Academy of Environmental Engineers, National Academy of Engineering, and National Society of Professional Engineers came out in support of the new policy.</p>

2

<p>Wow... That's huge...</p>

3

<p>This doesn't make much sense to me in that I have no idea what this change will entail. To me, I would think most of the top universities that are already ABET accredited will continue their Engineering BS programs and not revert to a BA.</p>

4

<p>
[quote]
To me, I would think most of the top universities that are already ABET accredited will continue their Engineering BS programs and not revert to a BA.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't actually think that they're replacing BS degrees with BA degrees... Check out the ASCE FAQ for the wording, and answers to some questions.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.asce.org/professional/PDLA-FAQ-040108.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.asce.org/professional/PDLA-FAQ-040108.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>The engineering BS is still going to be the engineering BS, from what I'm reading here. It will just no longer be enough, at a lot of programs, to get you a job. The BS degree won't be the point at which you stop, graduate, send out your resumes, and get a job, because the general consensus of engineers (civil engineers specifically) is that you can't fit the required "body-of-knowledge" of an engineer into a four-year curriculum... They feel that in order to be "done" with your schooling, with the amount that engineering requires that you know these days, you'll need one more year and a masters degree. This prohibition lift gives universities the option, and spurs a possible trend, towards a pre-engineering BS degree in a coupled accreditation with a follow-up MS degree.</p>

<p>The first motion that ABET was going to try for was to lift the dual-accreditation prohibition for ALL engineering degrees. If that failed, they were going to try for JUST civil and environmental-related engineering degrees. It would seem that the first one passed, so this affects everyone.</p>

<p>Not sure how fast this is going to go, or if it's going to work, or if it's going to affect current students, or what. The prohibition lift will go into effect in '09-'10's accreditation cycle, but whether programs choose to go for that kind of accreditation is up to them.</p>

<p>Corbett, feel free to add or correct or whatever... I'm just not sure they're going towards BAs instead of BSs.</p>

5

<p>It's good in that it will encourage more engineers to pursue further training, but at the same time, it will not and it can not eliminate the supply of and demand for engineering bachelors. The engineering BS will be the dominant engineering degree as long as any of us are alive.</p>

6

<p>Most likely, engineering will become more like architecture. If you want to become an architect, there are two different educational pathways:</p>

<p>(1) get an intensive, accredited, professional bachelor's degree (the B.Arch.)</p>

<p>(2) get a regular bachelor's degree (B.A. or B.S.) in any major, while meeting certain prerequisites (a "pre-architecture" curriculum). Then get an intensive, accredited, professional master's degree (the M.Arch.).</p>

<p>These are both perfectly acceptable routes. #1 is shorter, but narrower. #2 is broader, but takes longer. You get to get to choose your preference. In the future, engineering students will have a similar choice. </p>

<p>In architecture, there has been a trend for some prestigious schools to drop the B.Arch. in favor of the M.Arch. Examples include Harvard, Yale, Princeton, MIT, and Berkeley. Possibly this could happen in engineering as well. </p>

<p>However, there will probably still be many schools that continue offer professional bachelor's degree. In California, for example, you can't get a B.Arch. degree anywhere in the UC system, but it is still available in the Cal State System (at the two Cal Poly schools).</p>

7

<p>
[quote]
The engineering BS will be the dominant engineering degree as long as any of us are alive.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I would agree with this for all disciplines except civil engineering, particularly structural, where fewer and fewer firms are hiring anybody without a masters degree.</p>

8

<p>Well, the truth of the matter is, I don't know how much this will really change matters. The fact is, with the notable exception of Civil Engineering, ABET accreditation doesn't really matter for most engineers. Most employers of EE, ChemE's, ME's, AerospaceE's, BioE's, etc. sell products/services across state boundaries and hence don't need to abide by state accreditation regulations because they can take advantage of the 'industrial exemption'.</p>

9

<p>
[quote]
The fact is, with the notable exception of Civil Engineering, ABET accreditation doesn't really matter for most engineers.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yup, hence my previous post.</p>

10

<p>
[quote]
Well, the truth of the matter is, I don't know how much this will really change matters. The fact is, with the notable exception of Civil Engineering, ABET accreditation doesn't really matter for most engineers. Most employers of EE, ChemE's, ME's, AerospaceE's, BioE's, etc. sell products/services across state boundaries and hence don't need to abide by state accreditation regulations because they can take advantage of the 'industrial exemption'.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't think anybody in this thread thought that. Everybody agrees that it will only impact civil engineers, a small percentage of mechanical engineers, and a small percentage of electrical engineers.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I would agree with this for all disciplines except civil engineering, particularly structural, where fewer and fewer firms are hiring anybody without a masters degree.

[/quote]

A few years ago (it seems like ages), I spoke with a few recruiters form structural engineering firms, and they were pretty adamant about not hiring anybody with a MS degree. The only exceptions that they would even consider making is if you start pursuing a MS once you start working. </p>

<p>I have a friend who is working as a structural engineer with just a BS, so it's possible, but it's pretty rare. However, she IS planning on pursuing a MS. </p>

<p>I met someone at an ASCE function who is a structural engineer, and she recommended going to grad school. She felt that her undergrad didn't prepare her well enough for work, so perhaps a 5 year B.Eng may be good for the industry. </p>

<p>Some people are probably thinking that most of what you learn in school won't be used in the industry... ( I can just see sakky bringing up the chemE advanced mathematics example) ... but now I'm beginning to wonder how true this is once you get into the higher level courses. Personally, it hasn't been true for me, but then again I've been lucky enough to have many adjuncts teaching some of the advanced courses. That's probably a significant difference.</p>

<p>A 4+2 or a 5 year degree would probably be beneficial for all involved. For those pursuing engineering as a career, it'll provide for more preparation. For those that aren't, they can leave after 4 years and not take unnecessary courses.</p>

11

<p>Adding more years to get the "minimum" degree seems just what the engineering field needs to boost enrollment and encourage interest among high schoolers.</p>

<p>Oh, wait, no it's doesn't.</p>

12

<p>
[quote]
Adding more years to get the "minimum" degree seems just what the engineering field needs to boost enrollment and encourage interest among high schoolers.</p>

<p>Oh, wait, no it's doesn't.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Depending on how much more material we add to the curriculum, it may actually be easier becasue we aren't squeezing as many courses in 4 years. I don't know anybody that thought the B.Arch was easier than a BA+M.Arch. So in fact, it may encourage more people to go into engineering. </p>

<p>And most engineering majors would probably just pursue the 4 year BS. The only ones who would have an extended stay are civil engineering majors, but in reality many civEs (specifically structurals) pursue a MS anyway. Is it really going to make that much of a difference with respect to this?</p>

<p>There will likely be more science majors going into engineering because now it's easier to get into engineering grad school without an engineering undergrad degree.</p>

13

<p>
[quote]
The fact is, with the notable exception of Civil Engineering, ABET accreditation doesn't really matter for most engineers. Most employers of EE, ChemE's, ME's, AerospaceE's, BioE's, etc. sell products/services across state boundaries and hence don't need to abide by state accreditation regulations because they can take advantage of the 'industrial exemption'.

[/quote]
It's true that ABET accreditation may not matter for individual engineers in most fields. But ABET accreditation, for better or worse, does matter for university engineering departments. </p>

<p>Consider MIT, for example. MIT probably has the most powerful and respected brand name in engineering education on the planet. So does MIT really need voluntary outside validation from ABET to establish the credibility of their engineering degree programs ?</p>

<p>The answer, apparently, is "Yes". According to abet.org, MIT currently maintains no fewer than 14 separate ABET-accredited degree programs. Only three of these (civil, environmental, and ocean) are more or less civil-related. </p>

<p>And it's not just MIT. You would be hard pressed to find any legitimate engineering school that offered non-ABET degrees in traditional engineering fields like electrical, mechanical, or chemical -- despite the fact that few graduates in such fields pursue state licenses. </p>

<p>So ABET accreditation is important -- if for no other reason that university engineering departments perceive it as important.</p>

14

<p>
[quote]
So ABET accreditation is important -- if for no other reason that university engineering departments perceive it as important.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Good point. Agreed. This point crossed my mind when I was typing earlier, but then I saw something shiny.</p>

<p>It'll be interesting to watch what happens with curricula. I know a lot of engineering deans (including my former department head, Professor Dodds from UIUC, incidentally!) were quite opposed to them rescinding this.</p>

15

<p>
[quote]
Well, the truth of the matter is, I don't know how much this will really change matters.

[/quote]
It is likely that this change will reshape the way that some top schools train engineers. </p>

<p>Many administrators at prestigious universities would prefer not to offer professional degree programs at the undergraduate level. They don't really like traditional ABET engineering BS programs, because they are perceived as too narrow and specialized. That's exactly why schools like Harvard, Dartmouth, and Johns Hopkins have introduced non-ABET, non-professional, "engineering lite" BA degrees, as alternatives to the more intensive ABET BS. </p>

<p>But these schools have all kept their ABET BS programs too, because (as noted in my previous post), university engineering departments believe that it is important to offer ABET degrees.</p>

<p>But now, let's assume that these schools can offer ABET degrees at the MS level. In this case, it is likely that some will drop the ABET BS, which they weren't comfortable with anyway. Such universities will only provide pre-professional training at the undergraduate level, which is their preferred mode of operation. The professional training will be reserved for the graduate level -- following the same model as for medicine, law, business, architecture, etc.</p>

<p>This is exactly how it played out a few decades ago in architecture. Historically, well-known schools like Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Penn, MIT, Berkeley, Michigan, Illinois, UVa, WUSTL, and Georgia Tech all offered professional, NAAB-accredited B.Arch. degrees at the undergraduate level. But all of these schools dropped the B.Arch. in the 1960s or 1970s. Now they offer unaccredited pre-architecture programs at the undergraduate level, and the NAAB-accredited M.Arch. at the graduate level.</p>

<p>It's become rather uncommon for highly ranked schools to offer the B.Arch., although some still do, like Cornell, Rice, or USC. But even these schools also offer the M.Arch.</p>

<p>I see no reason why the same thing couldn't happen in engineering. I would be surprised if it didn't happen, at least at some schools.</p>

16

<p>
[quote]
And it's not just MIT. You would be hard pressed to find any legitimate engineering school that offered non-ABET degrees in traditional engineering fields like electrical, mechanical, or chemical -- despite the fact that few graduates in such fields pursue state licenses.</p>

<p>So ABET accreditation is important -- if for no other reason that university engineering departments perceive it as important.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But do they, really? As we all know, many of the top bioengineering departments, which are arguably the fastest growing of all of the engineering disciplines, are not accredited. Berkeley's bioengineering program has existed for over a decade, yet has never been accredited, and isn't pursuing accreditation. Stanford's petroleum engineering/energy resources engineering program - the #2 ranked such program in the country according to USNews - is not accredited, despite the fact that petroleum/earth resources engineering is somewhat similar to civil engineering. Similarly, both Berkeley's and Stanford's materials science & engineering programs are not accredited.</p>

<p>Look, the fact is, while those schools are accredited in 'traditional' engineering disciplines, if those schools were to not have such accreditation, it wouldn't really matter. Very few Stanford or Berkeley EE's will ever need accreditation, as the vast majority of them will end up working for high-tech firms in Silicon Valley. </p>

<p>
[quote]
It is likely that this change will reshape the way that some top schools train engineers.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>What I mean is that I wonder how much it will actually change the way that students pursue their educations in order to pursue their careers. Like I said before, most engineering students don't care about accreditation now, so why would they care in the future? </p>

<p>Hence, you may be correct in that some schools may eventually drop their accredited engineering bachelor's degrees. However, I would contend that - with the notable exception of civil engineers - most students would then simply earn the unaccredited engineering bachelor's and then proceed directly to the workforce just as they do now. Hence, little would actually change as far as actual employment patterns.</p>

17

<p>
[quote]
What I mean is that I wonder how much it will actually change the way that students pursue their educations in order to pursue their careers.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I agree, but from my own vantage point, I would make very different decisions were I not limited to an ABET accredited engineering BS. For one thing, I would take none of my schools "STS" classes, nor any of the hard sciences unrelated to my particular discipline. These requirements I would replace with humanities classes of more interest to me -- mostly philosophy. </p>

<p>To me, the opportunity cost of an undergrad engineering degree is high; it seems overly vocational. Eliminating ABET requirements would please me to no end...</p>

18

<p>
[quote]
But do they, really?

[/quote]
If there is some reasonable possibility that their degrees will be deemed legally inadequate for licensing purposes, then yes, engineering departments do care.</p>

<p>For example, you mention that bioengineering and materials science degrees are commonly unaccredited. That's true, but it's also true that those engineering disciplines have never been subject to licensing laws, in any US state. So it's impossible -- even in theory -- for non-ABET degrees in these disciplines to be perceived as inadequate by licensing boards. In this situation, a school with a good reputation can safely forego accreditation (though some get it anyway -- presumably because they perceive it as important).</p>

<p>You also mention Stanford's highly ranked petroleum engineering program. That's not really an exception either, because Stanford only offers petroleum engineering degrees at the graduate level (the cited ranking is from the US News grad school ranking). Graduate degrees have not traditionally been ABET-accredited (as noted elsewhere in this thread). </p>

<p>Stanford recently introduced a non-ABET BS program in "energy resources engineering", but this appears to be a very small and unconventional "niche" program. It wouldn't fit under the ABET accreditation requirements for petroleum, civil, or any other traditional discipline.</p>

19

<p>
[quote]
Very few Stanford or Berkeley EE's will ever need accreditation, as the vast majority of them will end up working for high-tech firms in Silicon Valley.

[/quote]
I'm sure you're right. But "the vast majority" isn't 100%, and "very few" isn't 0%. California administered 485 Electrical PE exams in 2007, and it seems possible that Stanford and Berkeley grads were among the candidates. </p>

<p>But even if they weren't, that's not the point. The point is that Stanford and Berkeley engineering administrators care about ABET accreditation, even if most of their students don't. The EE departments at both schools have maintained ABET accreditation since 1936, so it apparently matters to somebody.</p>

20

<p>
[quote]
Like I said before, most engineering students don't care about accreditation now, so why would they care in the future?

[/quote]
Because there will be a big difference between the unaccredited "BA in engineering studies" that some schools will offer, and the accredited "BS in engineering" that other schools will offer. You can already see this difference in action at schools like Harvard, Johns Hopkins, and Dartmouth, which currently offer both types of degrees. The unaccredited BA is much less specialized, and offers much more scope for courses or double majors outside math, engineering, and physical sciences.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I wonder how much it will actually change the way that students pursue their educations in order to pursue their careers.

[/quote]
There will be actual changes, because students will get to decide whether they want to study "engineering" or "pre-engineering" at the undergraduate level. Some top schools will probably go exclusively to the "pre-engineering" route. The concept of "pre-engineering" may seem unfamiliar now, but it will likely enter your vocabulary in the future, just like "pre-law" or "pre-med". </p>

<p>
[quote]
from my own vantage point, I would make very different decisions were I not limited to an ABET accredited engineering BS...To me, the opportunity cost of an undergrad engineering degree is high; it seems overly vocational. Eliminating ABET requirements would please me to no end...

[/quote]
And this is an (unsolicited) example of the kind of engineering student who will be affected -- in a positive way.</p>