Engineering Perceptions of ABET Accreditation Criteria
Publication: Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice
Volume 123, Issue 2
Abstract
The Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) has recommended a revised set of accreditation criteria that is designed to assure that graduates of accredited programs are prepared to enter the practice of engineering. The proposal also specifies that engineering programs must demonstrate that their graduates possess 11 educational attributes. Undergraduate and graduate engineering students as well as practitioners consider three of the 11 attributes to be particularly important. These include: (1) an ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering; (2) an ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data; and (3) an ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems. In contrast, two attributes received low ratings from all three groups. They include: (1) a recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in, lifelong learning; and (2) a knowledge of contemporary issues. This suggests that not all ABET educational attributes are considered by students and practitioners to have the same level of significance and perhaps should not be stressed to the same degree in an engineering curriculum.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
ABET engineering criteria 2000. (1995). Engrg. Accreditation Commission of the Accreditation Board for Engrg. and Technol. (ABET), Baltimore, Md.
2.
“A vital first step.” (1996). Engineering First, Engrg. Council, London, England.
3.
“Compensation: no recoveries in sight.” (1994). Engineers, Engrg. Workforce Commission of the Am. Assn. of Engrg. Societies (AAES), 1(1), 1–6.
4.
“Engineering could become just a technical degree.” (1995). Civ. Engrg., ASCE, 65(8), 10–14.
5.
Engineering education for a changing world. (1994). Am. Soc. for Engrg. Educ. (ASEE), Washington, D.C.
6.
Koehn, E.(1995a). “Interactive communication in civil engineering classrooms.”J. Profl. Issues in Engrg. Educ. and Pract., ASCE, 121(4), 259–261.
7.
Koehn, E.(1995b). “Practitioner and student recommendations for an engineering curriculum.”J. Engrg. Educ., 84(3), 241–248.
8.
Koehn, E. (1996). “Preparing students for the broadened world of engineering.”Proc., ASEE Gulf-Southwest Section Conf., ASEE, Washington, D.C., 90–95.
9.
National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE). (1992). “First professional degree survey report.”Publ. No. 3059, Alexandria, Va.
10.
Peterson, A. (1996). “New attitudes for an era of angst.” Presented at a Meeting of the Engineering Deans Council, ASEE, Washington, D.C.
11.
“Profession at risk: why four years?” (1995). Background material for the ASCE 1995 Education Conference, ASCE, New York, N.Y.
12.
“Re-engineering civil engineering education: goals for the 21st century.” (1994). Proc. Civ. Engrg. Workshop Rep. for the 1995 Civ. Engrg. Educ. Conf., ASCE, New York, N.Y., 11–12.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice
Volume 123 • Issue 2 • April 1997
Pages: 66 - 70
Copyright
Copyright © 1997 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Published online: Apr 1, 1997
Published in print: Apr 1997
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.