Can Substantial Equivalency Among Engineering Accreditation Systems be Achieved Globally? Sarah A. Rajala Dean, Bagley College of Engineering, Mississippi State University President, American Society for Engineering Education
Why is Substantial Equivalency of Accreditation Important? A world in transition Previously dominated by nationally differentiated organizations and cultural identities Now increasingly characterized by transnational institutions and multicultural communities “In the new mental geography created by the railroad, humanity mastered distance. In the mental geography of e-commerce, distance has been eliminated. There is only one economy and only one market. ” -- Peter Drucker Engineers will need to be able to live, study and work globally
Why is Substantial Equivalency of Accreditation Important? Mobility Education • Undergraduate • Graduate Working professionals • Benchmarking - measure of quality of education • Professional licensure
Current Situation National accreditation systems For example, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Egypt, Finland, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States Governmental or non-governmental
Current Situation Multi-national engineering accords Washington Accord, 1989 Bologna Declaration, 1999 Other multi-national accords Sydney Accord, 2001, engineering technologists Dublin Accord, 2002, engineering technicians
Washington Accord Substantially equivalent accreditation systems leading to recognition of substantial equivalence of programs in satisfying academic requirements for the practice of engineering at professional level
Washington Accord Signatories Australia, Canada, Chinese Taipei, Hong Kong China, Ireland, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore, South Africa, United Kingdom, United States Provisional Status Germany, India, Russia, Sri Lanka
Washington Accord – Knowledge Profile Graduate Attributes Engineering knowledge Problem analysis Design/development of solutions Investigation Modern tool usage Engineer and society
Washington Accord – Knowledge Profile Graduate Attributes Environment and sustainability Ethics Individual and team work Communication Project management and finance Lifelong learning
Bologna Accord – EUR-ACE Labels ASIIN – Germany Engineers Ireland RAEE – Russia Engineering Council –UK CTI – France Order of Engineers – Portugal MUDEK - Turkey
Bologna Accord – EUR-ACE Project Program Outcomes Knowledge and understanding Engineering analysis Engineering design Investigations Engineering practice Transferrable skills Apply to both first and second cycle
What Makes Substantial Equivalency So Hard? Both systems are outcomes based Both based on national accreditation Both systems have similar review processes I am not really sure, but But the length of programs are different • Washington Accord – four years for bachelors degree • EUR-ACE – first cycle is three years
Other Issues Licensure recognition More than 50 different licensure systems in the U. S. Each state/territory sets criterion Non-domestic ABET program accreditation does not guarantee substantial equivalency within the Washington Accord.
Скачать презентацию Can Substantial Equivalency Among Engineering Accreditation Systems be
64475ef1b7970a939c8849d383ccac2e.ppt