<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But that's precisely my point. Sure, it doesn't fit ABET accreditation requirements, but I doubt that most employers or most students really care. After all, like you alluded to, this isn't some scrub school we're talking about here. This is Stanford we're talking about. Somehow I doubt that there are many oil companies that would not consider hiring a Stanford Earth Resources Engineering grad just because he isn't accredited</p>
<p>In fact, this whole point actually ties into something that we had discussed in another thread. Most graduate engineering degrees are currently unaccredited, and hence those people who obtain such graduate degrees but came from non-engineering undergrad programs will never be formally "accredited". But that doesn't seem to deter anybody. For example, I can immediately come up with a quite large list of people who earned graduate degrees in engineering from MIT, but are still not "accredited" because their undergrad degrees were in a science or mathematics. For example, I know one guy who is completing his PhD in engineering at MIT and has been presented with a surfeit of job offers from many of the top engineering firms in the world, despite the fact that he doesn't have an "accredited" degree. {His undergrad degree was in physics.} </p>
<p>So, again I ask, with the exception of civil engineering, how many employers or students honestly really care about accreditation? I would argue that they care far more about the overall reputation of the school. I'll pose two questions to the peanut gallery. Suppose that the states were to accredit bioengineers in the future. How many people would turn down MIT, Stanford, or Berkeley for, say, Oregon State just because the latter is accredited in bioE? </p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, what I meant is whether it would matter to somebody who is actually important. Now, that may be harsh, but the fact is, administrators, frankly, aren't that important in terms of actually dictating who gets hired and why. </p>
<p>Look the truth of the matter is that what most engineering students really care about is getting a good job. Hence, the employers have real power - far more power than do the administrators. And as long as most engineering employers don't care about accreditation, neither will most students. Administrators can do whatever they want, but if employers don't care, then it doesn't really matter. </p>
<p>
[quote]
And this is an (unsolicited) example of the kind of engineering student who will be affected -- in a positive way.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, I suppose that could be construed as a change. </p>
<p>But what I was thinking about is whether many students really would be convinced to attend a school that they normally would not choose just because it offers one of these new accreditations. For example, suppose that MIT or Stanford choose not to offer master's level accreditation, but some no-name school does. How many people would turn down MIT or Stanford for that no-name school? How many employers would stop hiring from MIT or Stanford in favor of that no-name school? Again, with the exception of civil engineers, I think the number would be quite small.</p>