ABET to accredit professional MS degrees

College Majors Engineering Majors
41

<p>It might help in getting the inverview in the first place. Imagine this:</p>

<p>Two students with 3.8 GPAs from the same school in the same major. Both have similar job experience. One has taken the following upper division classes:</p>

<p>Algorithms
Theory
Operating Systems
AI
Software Engineering</p>

<p>The other has taken these upper division courses (electives, say):</p>

<p>Advanced Office Applications
Knowing yourself through Computers
Computers for Chocolate Enthusiasts
Computer Science for Poets
A Study of "Alice in Wonderland" and its relationship to CS principles and practices</p>

<p>The example is a bit exaggerated, but you see what I'm talking about. Who gets the interview?</p>

42

<p>
[quote]
It might help in getting the inverview in the first place. Imagine this:</p>

<p>Two students with 3.8 GPAs from the same school in the same major. Both have similar job experience. One has taken the following upper division classes:</p>

<p>Algorithms
Theory
Operating Systems
AI
Software Engineering</p>

<p>The other has taken these upper division courses (electives, say):</p>

<p>Advanced Office Applications
Knowing yourself through Computers
Computers for Chocolate Enthusiasts
Computer Science for Poets
A Study of "Alice in Wonderland" and its relationship to CS principles and practices</p>

<p>The example is a bit exaggerated, but you see what I'm talking about. Who gets the interview?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The presumption there is that employers actually know which classes you took before they decide to grant you the interview. The truth is, that is almost never the case. Most employers will get to see only your resume/CV and perhaps a cover letter before they can decide whether they actually want to talk to you or not. Your actual transcript - in the minority of cases when it is ever shown at all - is usually presented only after the interview when the company has decided that they have already decided to give you an offer and now just want to verify that what you said was true (i.e. that you really did graduate and with the degree that you said you were getting). </p>

<p>Now, again, I can agree that taking certain courses might marginally help you to get the interview as you may be able to list them on your resume, and that might attract some extra interest. The problem is that your competitor who took those "gut" courses is simply not going to list them on his resume at all, and so an employer has no way to know that your coursework was more rigorous than his. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Advanced Office Applications
Knowing yourself through Computers
Computers for Chocolate Enthusiasts
Computer Science for Poets
A Study of "Alice in Wonderland" and its relationship to CS principles and practices

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I understand that these course titles are fictional, but it actually speaks to another point - that while certain courses within a certain major are easier than others at a particular university, and same course itself can be easier if taken under certain profs, it is very difficult for an outsider to actually know that. The course titles themselves don't give away anything and neither do the course descriptions. </p>

<p>Let me give you a specific example from computer science at MIT. Course 6.871 (graduate level Knowledge-Based Application Systems) under Davis was generally considered to be an easy course, relative to other MIT graduate-level CS courses. But if you were never part of the MIT graduate CS community, there is no way for you to know that. The title of the course gives nothing away. On the other hand, course 6.251 (Introduction to Mathematical Programming) under Bertsimas is fiendishly difficult, despite having the word "Introduction" in the name. But again, if you didn't go to MIT, how would you know?</p>

43

<p>If the word "Introduction" is ever included in a title for a higher level course, it's going to be one of the f-ing hardest classes ever.</p>

<p>Also, I had always been told to include classes you've taken pertinent to your interests on your resume while you're still an undergrad. In your example, if one potential employee puts down Algorithms and OS and the other doesn't, wouldn't you lean towards the applicant that put those down since you're sure they've taken them?</p>

44

<p>
[quote]
Would they? I think that remains to be seen.

[/quote]
There's no way to show this conclusively, since there is no apparent trend toward regulation of bioengineering. However, it is demonstrably true that Berkeley and Stanford (and other top schools) maintain ABET accreditation in other non-civil fields where state licensure is offered, even when their graduates are unlikely to need it. So why should bioengineering be different?</p>

<p>
[quote]
It wasn't that long when Berkeley used to offer an unaccredited BS Petroleum Engineering degree program. Trust me - those graduates had no problem in getting jobs from the very best oil companies in the world, despite their lack of accreditation...I think the issue is something you alluded to before: no state (as far as I know) actually accredits petroleum engineers, just like no state currently accredits bioengineers. Hence, accreditation for petroleum engineers is a moot point.

[/quote]
No, NCEES offers a national Petroleum PE exam, and it's probably offered, or at least accepted, in most states. For example, the California PE online database has Petroleum PE numbers up to at least 1,750.</p>

<p>Petroleum production in California -- and California PetE degree programs -- have been in decline for decades. But I would be surprised if Berkeley had a BS program in PetE that was never ABET accredited at any point in its history. I can see them dropping the accreditation if they were planning to terminate the degree program (as they apparently did). But I don't know the history of this program, and can't verify whether or not it was ever ABET-accredited.</p>

<p>
[quote]
So you might say that the lack of accreditation in the latter program might concern some employers. Yet the fact remains that the latter graduates actually receive higher average starting salaries than do the former graduates.

[/quote]
I didn't suggest that the non-ABET degree was necessarily worse -- just that it was different, and that employers would care about the difference. It seems possible, for example, that non-ABET engineering degrees might be a better choice for prospective managers and administrators, since they allow more study of economics or business. The management track is obviously a viable pathway towards higher salaries.</p>

45

<p>
[quote]
I think it's quite simple: at the end of the day, what students really care about is getting a job. The only time that students will therefore really care about accreditation is when employers care. If employers don't care, neither will students.

[/quote]
The reason that most employers don't care about ABET accreditation today...is because they can essentially take it for granted. The overwhelming majority of engineering BS degrees granted in the US are ABET accredited. There are some exceptions, particularly in non-traditional or unregulated disciplines, but even then, it's predominantly only the prestigious, big-name schools that forego accreditation. As sakky notes, the "name brand" can be a satisfactory substitute for accreditation in practice.</p>

<p>It's going to get more complicated in the future, for both employers and students. The advent of ABET vs. non-ABET master's degrees will be followed by a choice between ABET vs. non-ABET bachelor's degrees, at schools that vary widely in quality. Choice is good, but it also makes things less straightforward.</p>

<p>Consider the field of law, for example. In most states, all law degrees must be accredited by ABA. So nobody (either employers or students) thinks much about law school accreditation. It's simply taken for granted.</p>

<p>But now, suppose that a choice exists between accredited and unaccredited degrees. California, for example, alllows ABA-accredited law schools, but also State Bar-accredited law schools, and unaccredited law schools. The largest law school in the State, by enrollment, is now Concord Law School, an unaccredited distance learning school. In effect, California now has three "tiers" of accreditation for law degrees, with widely differing levels of prestige and market value (in addition to that associated with the school itself). So while law degree accreditation is a complete non-issue in most states, it is a big issue in California. Employers and students alike are well aware of the market value associated with ABA accreditation or the lack thereof.</p>

<p>In engineering, the options for accredited vs. unaccredited degrees, at schools both good and not-so-good, at both the BS and MS levels, are going to multiply. Employers and students alike will have more choices, but will have to think harder about the type of degree(s) that they want, and will probably become more conscious of ABET accreditation (or the lack thereof) in engineering degrees. I don't know what the market will ultimately conclude, but I suspect that accreditation will become a more important consideration when it can no longer be taken for granted.</p>

46

<p>
[quote]
So, again I ask, with the exception of civil engineering, how many employers or students honestly really care about accreditation?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I have worked in the field of engineering for several decades and some of my work has been as an expert witness. Contrary to the "title," 99% of my expert witness work has been devoted to determining the strengths and weaknesses of my client's position and their opponent's position. If an engineer who was responsible for a faulty design, evaluation, QA, etc. did not come from an ABET accredited program, that was an opening for either side to attack. The Diplom-Ingenieur degree, the European equivalent of the US MS, was regarded similarly as a US MS degree, i.e., not a weakness.</p>

<p>Once a US graduate degree was obtained, the education of the engineer became much less of an issue. You have to consider what a jury of one's peers will think and all they have to hear is Master's Degree in engineering, and they assume the person is qualified by education. A non-accredited BS in engineering simply invites attack. </p>

<p>ABET accreditation standards are determined by the professions themselves, such as ASCE, ASME, etc. It is a peer review process. There are reasons some engineering disciplines have not been accredited. In some cases the market has not found the need for accreditation, such as Petroleum Engineering. Biomedical Engineering is a relatively new field and while programs can be ABET accredited, the field is rapidly evolving, resulting in changing standards...and standards take time to develop (I also serve on ASTM committees, so I am very aware of the lengthy process of developing standards that can withstand professional scrutiny).</p>

<p>ABET accreditation is driven by the market (employers). I know for a fact that a premier defense laboratory (over a decade ago) could not hire entry level engineers who did not graduate from an ABET accredited institution. </p>

<p>Certain sectors of Civil Engineering require not only ABET accreditation, but professional registration as well. Since these engineers will be designing public structures and works, registration is in society's best interest. Compare that to an EE working for Intel on chip design. Who is harmed by a faulty microprocessor? For other EE applications there exists an independent organization, Underwriters Laboratories, that sets standards and assumes some of the risks associated with a tested product. </p>

<p>If you look at Olin College of Engineering, a very successful institution devoted to changing engineering education in the US, they sought and obtained ABET accreditation. It was something they had to do in order to continue to attract top students...their market demanded it.</p>