Controversial aspects of the new ABET criteria and its implementation

Omid Ansary, Alireza Rahrooh, Walter W. Buchanan

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)903-910
Number of pages8
JournalASEE Annual Conference Proceedings
StatePublished - 2002

Fingerprint

Accreditation
Costs

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Engineering(all)

Cite this

@article{e6f878332a3b4485af7d2b5bee6eb7b5,
title = "Controversial aspects of the new ABET criteria and its implementation",
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.",
author = "Omid Ansary and Alireza Rahrooh and Buchanan, {Walter W.}",
year = "2002",
language = "English (US)",
pages = "903--910",
journal = "ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings",
issn = "0190-1052",

}

Controversial aspects of the new ABET criteria and its implementation. / Ansary, Omid; Rahrooh, Alireza; Buchanan, Walter W.

In: ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings, 2002, p. 903-910.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Controversial aspects of the new ABET criteria and its implementation

AU - Ansary, Omid

AU - Rahrooh, Alireza

AU - Buchanan, Walter W.

PY - 2002

Y1 - 2002

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=8744318413&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=8744318413&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:8744318413

SP - 903

EP - 910

JO - ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings

JF - ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings

SN - 0190-1052

ER -