Can Substantial Equivalency Among Engineering Accreditation Systems be Achieved Globally?

1. 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

2. 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

3. Why is Substantial Equivalency of Accreditation Important? • Mobility • Education • Undergraduate • Graduate • Working professionals • Benchmarking - measure of quality of education • Professional licensure

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. Washington Accord – Knowledge Profile • Graduate Attributes • Engineering knowledge • Problem analysis • Design/development of solutions • Investigation • Modern tool usage • Engineer and society

9. Washington Accord – Knowledge Profile • Graduate Attributes • Environment and sustainability • Ethics • Individual and team work • Communication • Project management and finance • Lifelong learning

10. Bologna Accord – EUR-ACE Labels • EUR-ACE Labels • ASIIN – Germany • Engineers Ireland • RAEE – Russia • Engineering Council –UK • CTI – France • Order of Engineers – Portugal • MUDEK - Turkey

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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.