Asee peer logo

Controversial Aspects Of The New Abet Criteria And Its Implementation

Download Paper |

Conference

2002 Annual Conference

Location

Montreal, Canada

Publication Date

June 16, 2002

Start Date

June 16, 2002

End Date

June 19, 2002

ISSN

2153-5965

Conference Session

Outcome Assessment, Quality, and Accreditation

Page Count

8

Page Numbers

7.328.1 - 7.328.8

Permanent URL

https://peer.asee.org/10319

Download Count

87

Request a correction

Paper Authors

author page

Omid Ansary

author page

Walter Buchanan

author page

Alireza Rahrooh

Download Paper |

Abstract
NOTE: The first page of text has been automatically extracted and included below in lieu of an abstract

Main Menu Session 3560

Controversial Aspects of the New ABET Criteria and its Implementation

Omid Ansary, Alireza Rahrooh, and Walter W. Buchanan Penn State University/University of Central Florida/Northeastern University

Abstract

This paper will address the problems that are associated with the new ABET criteria. Specifically, it discusses the “a through k” assessment criteria, problems of creating a process and maintaining the infrastructure that is required to validate the outcomes, the cost issues related to the resources engaged in accommodating such a process, and how these issues are anticipated to influence the participation of universities/colleges in such unattractive activities. Moreover, the problem of assessing the assessors, lack of uniformity in evaluation of engineering programs across different colleges and universities (different evaluators may be influenced by their own philosophies of the assessment process, since many of the criteria are either vague and/or loosely stated), and questionable results, since in most cases only one evaluator makes the recommendations regarding the accreditation of a program (this may be caused either by non- availability of sufficient number of evaluators from ABET or lack of funds from institutions to support visitation of additional evaluators). The authors will explore their personal experiences, using examples that are associated with the foregoing issues.

I. Introduction

The Engineering Criteria 2000 is an outcome assessment process that requires various criteria for institution seeking accreditation. These criteria include;

Criterion 1. Students Criterion 2. Program Educational Objectives Criterion 3. Program Outcomes and Assessment Criterion 4. Professional Component Criterion 5. Faculty Criterion 6. Facilities Criterion 7. Institutional Support and Financial Resources Criterion 8. Program Criteria

Although the process and criteria are designed to accredit quality-engineering programs, they have several weaknesses and their implementations demand enormous resources. These weaknesses and required burden on the institutions, which is unattractive economically and administratively, is causing engineering programs across the nation to question the affordability of seeking accreditation through ABET. Furthermore, the quality, quantity, and non-uniformity of the assessors/evaluators have also caused great concerns for institutions seeking accreditation.

Proceedings of the 2002 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition 1 Copyright ©2002, American Society for Engineering Education

Main Menu

Ansary, O., & Buchanan, W., & Rahrooh, A. (2002, June), Controversial Aspects Of The New Abet Criteria And Its Implementation Paper presented at 2002 Annual Conference, Montreal, Canada. https://peer.asee.org/10319

ASEE holds the copyright on this document. It may be read by the public free of charge. Authors may archive their work on personal websites or in institutional repositories with the following citation: © 2002 American Society for Engineering Education. Other scholars may excerpt or quote from these materials with the same citation. When excerpting or quoting from Conference Proceedings, authors should, in addition to noting the ASEE copyright, list all the original authors and their institutions and name the host city of the conference. - Last updated April 1, 2015