Is going to an ABET certified school a big deal?

<p>Looks like cosmicfish beat me to the punch. Sakky - if you want to make your argument valid, lets start looking at more common engineering fields like civil, mechanical, electrical and now tell me what good a non ABET degree is.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Wrong. I take the position that ABET accreditation is only truly important in fields where state licensing is a key factor in the job market, such as in civil and structural engineering. For all other fields, the overall reputation of the program and its connection to recruiters is far more important. As Corbett himself has stated (perhaps in other threads), most engineering fields care little about licensing. </p>

<p>For example, if MIT were to somehow lose its ABET accreditation for EECS, should nobody then choose that course of study in favor of some 4th tier accredited program? Indeed, I can’t personally think of even a single MIT EECS graduate (and I know many, as it is by far the largest major at MIT) who has ever become licensed, or even has it as a goal. </p>

<p>The same holds true with aerospace engineering. According to USNews, MIT has the #1 ranked aerospace engineering program in the country. Yet I can’t think of a single MIT aero graduate who has become licensed, or even desires to be. The vast majority of aero graduates work for product-oriented firms such as Boeing or for Federal agencies such as NASA or the FAA, none of which are subject to state licensing requirements. </p>

<p><a href=“1”>quote</a> He was talking about civil and aerospace, and you provided one example that was neither and another example that didn’t actually graduate any undergraduates

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But they could graduate some undergrads. And I rather doubt that anybody would seriously turn down Stanford for a 4th tier accredited program. </p>

<p><a href=“2”>quote</a> Bereft of any other context, your statements read to me as a defense of the position that accreditation is not important in general. Am I wrong, do you feel that it is?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>See above. It is true - apart from the disclaimers stated above, I do think that accreditation is unimportant in most engineering fields. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>No, I think the reasonings put forth were quite decent, certainly far better than your reasoning. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>So let’s talk about it. EECS is by far the largest single engineering discipline. Yet the fact remains that the vast majority of EECS graduates will never be licensed, nor will they ever need to be. </p>

<p>As a case in point, Berkeley offers with the College of Engineering the accredited EECS BS program, within which the vast majority of students are actually pursuing the “CS” track, which shares most of the same coursework with Berkeley’s unaccredited “pure” CS BA program which is offered in the College of Letters and Science. Yet the latter hardly seem to be hurt by the lack of accreditation in their program - indeed the salaries of the latter are actually higher than those of the EECS graduates. That’s right - higher. </p>

<p>Similarly, MIT offers an accredited EECS major (the vaunted “Course 6”), within which the vast majority of students choose to specialize in the “Course 6-3” computer science subspecialty. At the same time, MIT also offers what they deem the “pure” (and unaccredited) computer science program within, oddly, the math department as designed by “Course 18-3”. Yet MIT math majors actually earn a higher starting salary than do the EECS majors. That’s right - higher. </p>

<p>In each case, students hardly seem to have been hurt by having graduated from the ‘unaccredited’ program. Whether you want to argue that that is because of ‘stupid’ employers who are ‘overpaying’ unworthy unaccredited graduates is beside the point. What is undeniable is that the largest subcategory of accredited engineers - that being the computer science specialty within electrical engineering - do not seem to be gaining much benefit from their accreditation.</p>

<p>But if you still choose to disagree, then again, I would posit the following thought experiment. Ask yourself, honestly, what would really happen if schools such as MIT, Stanford, Berkeley, Caltech and the like were to suddenly forfeited their EECS accreditation. Apart from some public relations controversy, the answer is probably nothing. Frankly, those schools don’t need the imprimatur of ABET to bolster their well-established EECS reputations, and, if anything, if those schools together decided to leave ABET, it would most likely be interpreted as a problem with ABET.</p>

<p>

Most other fields care little about licensing and yet many care about accreditation. Many grad programs have an expectation of accreditation, and while they may wave it for elite schools,I have yet to hear of it. For industry, I contacted a hiring director at my company, one whom I know pretty well, and he said:</p>

<p>“To be honest, it does not come up that often . We only recruit from quality programs and they are all accredited. A few years ago we did get an application from a PhD who had a good looking resume from an unknown school, and we dropped it when we saw it was unaccredited. That’s the only one I can think of.”</p>

<p>

Could they? They don’t even list it as an approved major, and haven’t approved anyone for the individual study version in some time. Considering Stanford’s prestige, don’t you think SOMEONE would have done so if it were possible? And if it is not, does the accreditation status matter? Why spend the money and effort if they are not going to use it?</p>

<p>

Are you unable to conceive that no one here is arguing about CS? Many schools don’t even include CS in engineering, and new programs like CS are almost NEVER accredited anyway! The fact that CS is unaccredited is irrelevant to other engineering majors.</p>

<p>

It would probably be quite the scandal, almost on the order of the schools that quit using the SAT for admissions. And considering their reputation, THOSE few top schools would probably be fine. What about University of Massachusetts, or UC Santa Barbara? How do you think THEY would weather?</p>

<p>Here is my thought experiment for you – considering that maintaining ABET accreditation is a drain on money and resources, and stipulating that those aforementioned schools could still draw and place students without it, why do they bother? ABET accredits individual programs – if they stopped accrediting EE, Civil could still be accredited. So why do those schools do it? They don’t need the recruiting boost, they don’t need the advertising, it costs them time and money, and yet they continue to go through the process every 6 six years. Why?</p>

<p>Sakky - You are using aero as an example, a field that is exempt from state licensing as it falls under FAA guidelines. You’re also using CS as an example, a field that doesn’t have state licensing requirements. And yes, you are right in the fact that a lot of fields you dont even need a license, but for the people that want it either based on professional desire or out of professional need, a non ABET program is going to be a hindrance. </p>

<p>Lets take a different angle - what if I’m applying for a ME job and it says I need an ABET accredited degree, what do I do then? What if I’m a civil engineer and I’m trying to get licensed, what do I do when my career depends on having a PE license and I have to do double the time requirements to get it? What if I’m an EE applying for a management position that also requires a PE? The bottom line is you are closing doors if you dont get that ABET accreditation, regardless of what school it says on the top of your diploma. It could be the University of the Vatican and accredited by St. Peter, but that doesn’t mean jack when all the applicants next to you meet the stated requirements. If accreditation didnt matter, schools wouldn’t jump through hurdles to do it. Accreditation isn’t just a gold star on your program, it’s something that says you meet a minimum level of competence in your engineering program and that your graduates can meet a certain minimum standard of knowledge.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>But now it seems that you’ve conceded my central point. Accreditation matters little compared to the the overall reputation of the school. Graduates from the unaccredited Berkeley CS program seem to perform just as well in terms of employment and graduate school opportunities as the graduates from the accredited EECS program. The same holds at MIT. </p>

<p>What seems to matter is that they come from quality schools. Put another way, would a graduate program really tell an unaccredited Berkeley engineer that: While your CV looks excellent, the fact that you don’t actually have an accredited degree means that we’re not going to admit you."? I find that doubtful. Put another way, if MIT, Stanford, or Berkeley were to magically lose its EECS accreditation tomorrow, would anybody really care? Be honest. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>But they still offer it. And anybody who managed to complete the program would have the Stanford imprimatur, which would surely override any issues regarding accreditation. </p>

<p>One could consider another example: the Stanford CS program, which is one of the most popular majors at the school, yet is unaccredited. Yet one cannot deny the overwhelming success enjoyed by Stanford CS graduates over the last 2 generations, whether in terms of employment, entrepreneurship, or academia, and indeed that program may be the most successful undergraduate program in all of Stanford. </p>

<p>Put bluntly, would you rather go to the unaccredited CS program at Stanford or to the accredited CS program at Sacramento State? Be honest with yourself. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Wrong - it is entirely relevant. Navyasw opened the discussion to the entire realm of engineering. EECS is the #1 most popular major at MIT and one of the most popular at Berkeley. And yet what are the majority of students within those majors specializing in, if not computer science? Like I said, most MIT EECS majors are actually pursuing “Course 6-3”, which is the computer science option. The same could be said of their counterparts at Berkeley. </p>

<p>The point is, whether we agree with it or not, CS is deeply embedded within the engineering fabric at many of the top engineering schools. Heck, the CS courses at MIT and Berkeley are actually taught by the engineering faculty. Hence, any discussion of the worthiness of accreditation is entirely relevant to CS students. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Sure, a scandal for ABET. The fact that the top schools chose to abandon ABET would cast serious doubt on the value of ABET, not on those particular schools. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>But we’re not talking about them. At least, I’m not. I am making the point that, outside of state-licensed professions, accreditation matters little, relative to the overall reputation and resources of the school. One should not turn down a strongly regarded school simply because of a lack of accreditation. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>And they clearly are picking and choosing which programs to accredit. Berkeley probably could accredit its BA CS program - so why haven’t they? MIT probably could accredit its ‘pure’ CS program which oddly happens to be housed within the math department, so why don’t they?</p>

<p>I can’t speak to the internal organizational decision-making dynamics of any particular school. If that interests you, then perhaps you should ask them. All I can tell you is that the lack of accreditation for those programs doesn’t seem to have hurt them or, more crucially, their graduates. Again, would you rather graduate with an unaccredited BA CS degree from Berkeley or an accredited CS degree from Sac State? </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Well, the OP was talking about aero, was he not? Furthermore, much of the later thread then understandably centered around aero, did it not? </p>

<p>So if anybody brought up aero as a talking point, it wasn’t me. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Well, you did open the door by inviting in a discussion on EE, and whether we agree with it or not, it is an inescapable fact that CS is a deeply embedded topic of study within many top EE programs. For example, you can’t even choose a pure EE major at MIT or Berkeley. Your only choice is EECS. </p>

<p>Hence, given that CS is deeply intertwined with modern-day EE education whether we wish it were so or not, I think it is entirely fair to compare the EECS major vs. its (often times unaccredited) pure CS counterpart, particularly when offered at the very same school. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>But that’s my point - how many actually desire licensing? It certainly seems to me that outside of a few fields, notably civil and structural engineering, few engineers choose to pursue it. With the exception of civil engineering, I struggle to think of a single MIT graduate that I know who has ever expressed even the slightest desire to become licensed. The same seems to be true at Berkeley and Stanford - I can perhaps think of perhaps 1 or 2 non-civil engineers who actually considered obtaining a license (and I doubt that they ever completed the process). </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>But you’re also closing doors when you choose not to attend a top school, perhaps because of a lack of ‘accreditation’. Let’s face it, certain companies recruit at only a certain handful of schools, and if you don’t happen to attend one of those schools, then you’re probably never going to be hired. Facebook, for example, doesn’t recruit at the accredited CS program at Sac State but clearly recruit heavily from the unaccredited CS program at Stanford. </p>

<p>And that again gets to my basic stance. To be clear: I am not claiming that accreditation has absolutely zero value. Surely it has some non-zero value. Rather, what I am arguing is that, apart from civil/structural, accreditation has value that is quite marginal, particularly when compared to the overall reputation and resources of the school writ large. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>And schools don’t, for certain majors. Like I said, Stanford, Berkeley, and MIT have all chosen not to accredit their pure CS programs (whereas Sac State does). Berkeley and Caltech have chosen not to accredit their BioE major. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Well, I would argue that the fact that you graduated with an engineering degree, even if ‘unaccredited’, from a school of the caliber or MIT, Stanford, Caltech, or Berkeley, ought to dispel any concerns regarding your overall technical competence. Accreditation at that stage provides little added value. Like I said before, if MIT were to magically lose its accreditation tomorrow, would anybody really care?</p>

<p>Sakky - If MIT,Stanford, and all did lose accreditation, I think it would be a big deal. Not only for the school, but for all of ABET. That would essentially be the great schism of engineering academics.</p>

<p>When you say you dont know any MIT grads who have their PE’s, there’s several I know who do have it. The PE may not be required in a lot of engineering fields, but it is certainly desired. Even if you are in a field like Mechanical which mostly doesn’t require it, many management and supervisory jobs definitely require it or at least prefer for people to have it. Regardless, it’s a plus on a resume.</p>

<p>Don’t mechanical and electrical engineers have to stamp building drawings? You’d need a PE for that.</p>

<p>Maine - yes, but MEs and EEs for some reason or another don’t need to be licensed nearly to the same extent as Civil Engineers for whatever reason. I’m a licensed ME and most other licensed MEs and EEs I’ve talked to say they’ve never stamped anything in their careers.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>That’s exactly what I’ve been saying. More importantly, the results would likely redound more strongly upon ABET. Let’s face it, for legitimization purposes, ABET needs schools like MIT and Stanford more than the reverse. If those top schools all jointly pulled out of ABET, ABET would eventually be viewed as an organization of ‘wanna-be’ schools. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Again, to be clear, I’m not arguing that accreditation and licensing hold precisely zero value in fields other than civil/structural. Surely they hold some. However, the point is, the value is quite limited compared to the overall strength of the school proper. Few if any people are going to turn down a high-prestige unaccredited program for a low-tier accredited program, nor should they. </p>

<p>It certainly seems to me that far far more managers in engineering firms hold not licensing but rather MBA’s, particularly from top B-schools. It certainly seems to me that far more MIT (non-civil) engineering students are more interested in eventually earning MBA’s than PE licenses. In fact, in many cases, managers at engineering firms don’t even hold undergrad engineering degrees at all but do have business training. For example, Steve Ballmer was hired to become Microsoft’s first business manager despite not holding an engineering degree - his studied math at Harvard - nor even having completed an MBA, having dropped out of Stanford GSB. One can question the wisdom of engineering companies hiring managers who lack formal engineering backgrounds, but like it or not, they do so routinely. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>In the rare cases of ME’s and EE’s who actually work for the construction industry, perhaps. But let’s face it, the vast majority of them do not work in that industry. The overwhelming majority of EE’s work in, natch, the electronics and computer industry for which no licensing is required. Similarly, the vast majority of ME’s work in product-oriented industries such as automotive or machinery for which, again, no licensing is required. </p>

<p>Now, don’t get me wrong. I agree that licensing may be helpful even in industries that do not require it, as it may serve as a resume booster. But, let’s face it, a name brand such as MIT or Stanford is a pretty darn powerful resume booster in and of itself, almost certainly more powerful than a license. I simply can’t imagine any electronics or auto firm ever saying: “I see that you have a degree from MIT and excellent work experience, but oh wait, you’re not actually licensed, so we’re not going to hire you.”</p>

I know this is years overdue, but all this talk about ABET or no success/job prospects is absolutely ridiculous. I will agree w/ the one poster who mentioned that ABET standard IS REQUIRED for those who wish to pursue a career as a patent agent/attorney. Otherwise, if you graduate from a non-ABET accredited school, your opportunities are nearly unlimited. I graduated from a low-ranked, non-ABET accredited school, and I am now working for the number one company in the aerospace industry.

For all readers in a situation similar to the OP, do not be discouraged, get into the best school you can, do your very best, network and you WILL get a high-paying job. Hth someone!

^I’ll have to disagree with you. Both Defense companies I interned/Co-oped with required an ABET degree. In fact, I’d say the majority of places I applied to (from indeed.com) explicitly required an ABET degree. Is it required in all cases? No. However, in most cases, I’d wager ABET is the way to go.