Corbett

ABET, the accrediting body for US engineering programs, has announced that it will begin "dual-level" accreditation, beginning in 2009-2010. In other words, it will be possible for an engineering department to offer both an ABET-accredited professional BS degree, and an ABET-accredited professional MS degree.

Historically, ABET would only accredit one degree program in any discipline. This was normally the BS degree, which has traditionally been the first professional degree for engineers. The MS degree was rarely accredited, except at a few graduate-only institutions.

Under the new system, professional MS degrees should become much more common. It will likely become normal to pursue "pre-engineering" at the undergraduate level, just as it is normal to pursue "pre-law", "pre-med", or "pre-architecture". As a prospective engineer, you could major in anything as an undergraduate, as long as you met certain basic science and math requirements. Then you would get specialized engineering training, and a professional degree, in graduate school.

The traditional 4-year professional BS option won't go away. However, it is possible that some schools may choose to drop their professional BS programs, and promote the BA + MS route instead.

The American Society of Civil Engineers, American Academy of Environmental Engineers, National Academy of Engineering, and National Society of Professional Engineers came out in support of the new policy.

aibarr

Wow... That's huge...

Blah2009

This doesn't make much sense to me in that I have no idea what this change will entail. To me, I would think most of the top universities that are already ABET accredited will continue their Engineering BS programs and not revert to a BA.

aibarr

I don't actually think that they're replacing BS degrees with BA degrees... Check out the ASCE FAQ for the wording, and answers to some questions.

http://www.asce.org/professional/PDLA-FAQ-040108.pdf

The engineering BS is still going to be the engineering BS, from what I'm reading here. It will just no longer be enough, at a lot of programs, to get you a job. The BS degree won't be the point at which you stop, graduate, send out your resumes, and get a job, because the general consensus of engineers (civil engineers specifically) is that you can't fit the required "body-of-knowledge" of an engineer into a four-year curriculum... They feel that in order to be "done" with your schooling, with the amount that engineering requires that you know these days, you'll need one more year and a masters degree. This prohibition lift gives universities the option, and spurs a possible trend, towards a pre-engineering BS degree in a coupled accreditation with a follow-up MS degree.

The first motion that ABET was going to try for was to lift the dual-accreditation prohibition for ALL engineering degrees. If that failed, they were going to try for JUST civil and environmental-related engineering degrees. It would seem that the first one passed, so this affects everyone.

Not sure how fast this is going to go, or if it's going to work, or if it's going to affect current students, or what. The prohibition lift will go into effect in '09-'10's accreditation cycle, but whether programs choose to go for that kind of accreditation is up to them.

Corbett, feel free to add or correct or whatever... I'm just not sure they're going towards BAs instead of BSs.

csprof2000

It's good in that it will encourage more engineers to pursue further training, but at the same time, it will not and it can not eliminate the supply of and demand for engineering bachelors. The engineering BS will be the dominant engineering degree as long as any of us are alive.

Corbett

Most likely, engineering will become more like architecture. If you want to become an architect, there are two different educational pathways:

(1) get an intensive, accredited, professional bachelor's degree (the B.Arch.)

(2) get a regular bachelor's degree (B.A. or B.S.) in any major, while meeting certain prerequisites (a "pre-architecture" curriculum). Then get an intensive, accredited, professional master's degree (the M.Arch.).

These are both perfectly acceptable routes. #1 is shorter, but narrower. #2 is broader, but takes longer. You get to get to choose your preference. In the future, engineering students will have a similar choice.

In architecture, there has been a trend for some prestigious schools to drop the B.Arch. in favor of the M.Arch. Examples include Harvard, Yale, Princeton, MIT, and Berkeley. Possibly this could happen in engineering as well.

However, there will probably still be many schools that continue offer professional bachelor's degree. In California, for example, you can't get a B.Arch. degree anywhere in the UC system, but it is still available in the Cal State System (at the two Cal Poly schools).

aibarr

I would agree with this for all disciplines except civil engineering, particularly structural, where fewer and fewer firms are hiring anybody without a masters degree.

sakky

Well, the truth of the matter is, I don't know how much this will really change matters. The fact is, with the notable exception of Civil Engineering, ABET accreditation doesn't really matter for most engineers. Most employers of EE, ChemE's, ME's, AerospaceE's, BioE's, etc. sell products/services across state boundaries and hence don't need to abide by state accreditation regulations because they can take advantage of the 'industrial exemption'.

aibarr

Yup, hence my previous post.

ken285

I don't think anybody in this thread thought that. Everybody agrees that it will only impact civil engineers, a small percentage of mechanical engineers, and a small percentage of electrical engineers.

A few years ago (it seems like ages), I spoke with a few recruiters form structural engineering firms, and they were pretty adamant about not hiring anybody with a MS degree. The only exceptions that they would even consider making is if you start pursuing a MS once you start working.

I have a friend who is working as a structural engineer with just a BS, so it's possible, but it's pretty rare. However, she IS planning on pursuing a MS.

I met someone at an ASCE function who is a structural engineer, and she recommended going to grad school. She felt that her undergrad didn't prepare her well enough for work, so perhaps a 5 year B.Eng may be good for the industry.

Some people are probably thinking that most of what you learn in school won't be used in the industry... ( I can just see sakky bringing up the chemE advanced mathematics example) ... but now I'm beginning to wonder how true this is once you get into the higher level courses. Personally, it hasn't been true for me, but then again I've been lucky enough to have many adjuncts teaching some of the advanced courses. That's probably a significant difference.

A 4+2 or a 5 year degree would probably be beneficial for all involved. For those pursuing engineering as a career, it'll provide for more preparation. For those that aren't, they can leave after 4 years and not take unnecessary courses.

RacinReaver

Adding more years to get the "minimum" degree seems just what the engineering field needs to boost enrollment and encourage interest among high schoolers.

Oh, wait, no it's doesn't.

ken285

Depending on how much more material we add to the curriculum, it may actually be easier becasue we aren't squeezing as many courses in 4 years. I don't know anybody that thought the B.Arch was easier than a BA+M.Arch. So in fact, it may encourage more people to go into engineering.

And most engineering majors would probably just pursue the 4 year BS. The only ones who would have an extended stay are civil engineering majors, but in reality many civEs (specifically structurals) pursue a MS anyway. Is it really going to make that much of a difference with respect to this?

There will likely be more science majors going into engineering because now it's easier to get into engineering grad school without an engineering undergrad degree.

Corbett

It's true that ABET accreditation may not matter for individual engineers in most fields. But ABET accreditation, for better or worse, does matter for university engineering departments.

Consider MIT, for example. MIT probably has the most powerful and respected brand name in engineering education on the planet. So does MIT really need voluntary outside validation from ABET to establish the credibility of their engineering degree programs ?

The answer, apparently, is "Yes". According to abet.org, MIT currently maintains no fewer than 14 separate ABET-accredited degree programs. Only three of these (civil, environmental, and ocean) are more or less civil-related.

And it's not just MIT. You would be hard pressed to find any legitimate engineering school that offered non-ABET degrees in traditional engineering fields like electrical, mechanical, or chemical -- despite the fact that few graduates in such fields pursue state licenses.

So ABET accreditation is important -- if for no other reason that university engineering departments perceive it as important.

aibarr

Good point. Agreed. This point crossed my mind when I was typing earlier, but then I saw something shiny.

It'll be interesting to watch what happens with curricula. I know a lot of engineering deans (including my former department head, Professor Dodds from UIUC, incidentally!) were quite opposed to them rescinding this.

Corbett

It is likely that this change will reshape the way that some top schools train engineers.

Many administrators at prestigious universities would prefer not to offer professional degree programs at the undergraduate level. They don't really like traditional ABET engineering BS programs, because they are perceived as too narrow and specialized. That's exactly why schools like Harvard, Dartmouth, and Johns Hopkins have introduced non-ABET, non-professional, "engineering lite" BA degrees, as alternatives to the more intensive ABET BS.

But these schools have all kept their ABET BS programs too, because (as noted in my previous post), university engineering departments believe that it is important to offer ABET degrees.

But now, let's assume that these schools can offer ABET degrees at the MS level. In this case, it is likely that some will drop the ABET BS, which they weren't comfortable with anyway. Such universities will only provide pre-professional training at the undergraduate level, which is their preferred mode of operation. The professional training will be reserved for the graduate level -- following the same model as for medicine, law, business, architecture, etc.

This is exactly how it played out a few decades ago in architecture. Historically, well-known schools like Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Penn, MIT, Berkeley, Michigan, Illinois, UVa, WUSTL, and Georgia Tech all offered professional, NAAB-accredited B.Arch. degrees at the undergraduate level. But all of these schools dropped the B.Arch. in the 1960s or 1970s. Now they offer unaccredited pre-architecture programs at the undergraduate level, and the NAAB-accredited M.Arch. at the graduate level.

It's become rather uncommon for highly ranked schools to offer the B.Arch., although some still do, like Cornell, Rice, or USC. But even these schools also offer the M.Arch.

I see no reason why the same thing couldn't happen in engineering. I would be surprised if it didn't happen, at least at some schools.