Ressler, S. J., & Lenox, T. A. (2014, June), Accreditation Issues of Strategic Importance to the Civil Engineering Profession  Paper presented at 2014 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Indianapolis, Indiana. 10.18260/1-2--20021

\bibitem{asee_peer_20021}
  Ressler, S. J., \& Lenox, T. A. (2014, June), \emph{Accreditation Issues of Strategic Importance to the Civil Engineering Profession}
  Paper presented at 2014 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition, Indianapolis, Indiana.
  10.18260/1-2--20021

Stephen J. Ressler PE and Thomas A. Lenox , Dist.M.ASCE, F.ASEE.  "Accreditation Issues of Strategic Importance to the Civil Engineering Profession".  2014 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Indianapolis, Indiana, 2014, June.  ASEE Conferences, 2014.  https://peer.asee.org/20021 Internet.  13 May, 2024

\bibitem{asee_peer_20021}
  Stephen J. Ressler PE and Thomas A. Lenox , Dist.M.ASCE, F.ASEE.
  "Accreditation Issues of Strategic Importance to the Civil Engineering Profession".
  \emph{2014 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition, Indianapolis, Indiana, 2014, June}.
  ASEE Conferences, 2014.
  https://peer.asee.org/20021 Internet.  13 May, 2024

@INPROCEEDINGS{asee_peer_20021
author = "Stephen J. Ressler PE and Thomas A. Lenox , Dist.M.ASCE, F.ASEE"
title = "Accreditation Issues of Strategic Importance to the Civil Engineering Profession"
booktitle = "2014 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition"
year = "2014"
month = "June"
address = "Indianapolis, Indiana"
publisher = "ASEE Conferences"
note = {https://peer.asee.org/20021}
number = {10.18260/1-2--20021}
}

TY  - CPAPER
AB  -                    Engaging with ABET Regarding Policy Issues            of Strategic Importance to the Civil Engineering ProfessionFor nearly two decades, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) has been preparing toaddress the unprecedented engineering challenges of the 21st century by advocating higheracademic prerequisites for entry into the practice of civil engineering at the professional level.This “Raise the Bar” initiative is formally articulated in ASCE Policy Statement 465.ASCE’s ability to implement the “Raise the Bar” initiative has been (and will continue to be)substantially influenced by ABET accreditation. Historically, ABET accreditation criteria,policies, and procedures have provided the “gold standard” for ensuring the quality ofengineering programs in the U.S. As a result, the standards for professional engineeringlicensure throughout the U.S. incorporate provisions that simply presume the quality of anABET-accredited engineering degree—with no further scrutiny of university curricula orindividual engineers’ transcripts. Given this strong linkage to professional licensure,appropriately crafted ABET accreditation criteria, policies, and procedures can serve as powerfultools in support of ASCE’s efforts to raise the educational bar for engineers. Conversely,accreditation criteria, policies, or procedures that do not support an adequate level of educationalattainment can seriously hinder the initiative. Historically, ASCE has had a strongorganizational structure and processes for monitoring and influencing the ABET criteria;however, the society has not been adequately organized for systematically scrutinizing andinfluencing ABET policies and procedures. Given the strong impact of ABET policies andprocedures on the level of educational attainment in accredited engineering programs, thisshortcoming in ASCE’s committee organization has proved to be a substantial hindrance to theimplementation of Policy Statement 465.In early 2010, in recognition of this shortcoming, ASCE formed an accreditation task committeefor the purpose of strategic-level interaction with ABET. The principal objective of thiscommittee was to engage with the senior governing bodies of ABET to influence thedevelopment and maintenance of policies, procedures, and criteria conducive to ASCE’s ongoing“Raise the Bar” initiative. The task committee served until the fall of 2012, when its functions—now recognized as indispensable—were incorporated in into the newly created ASCECommittee on Accreditation—a product of the society’s committee restructuring initiative.The purpose of this paper is to describe the organization, processes, and accomplishments ofASCE’s accreditation task committee and to assess its effectiveness in fulfilling its charge.This paper begins with an overview of the ABET governance structure and principal governingdocuments. It then describes the composition of the task committee and its processes forinteracting with the senior governing bodies of ABET, as well as the various constituenciescomprising ASCE’s accreditation community.The author then outlines five of the most critical issues on which the accreditation taskcommittee has been working for the past three years:   (1) ABET Governance – In 2009, ABET proposed a series of modifications to the ABET       Policies and Procedures Manual, which had the effect of shifting policy-making       authority from the ABET Board of Directors (which is appropriately representative of the       ABET Member Societies) to non-representative governing bodies.   (2) The Program Naming Loophole - Current ABET policy allows a program to avoid the       oversight of an ABET Member Society and to avoid compliance with ABET Program       Criteria simply by choosing a program name that is not associated with any current       published Program Criteria. (For example, a program called “Infrastructure Engineering”       would not be required to comply with the current ABET Civil Engineering Program       Criteria.)   (3) Structural Engineering Program Criteria – The structural engineering community       (both within and outside of ASCE) has been working to establish ABET Program Criteria       for Structural Engineering. While this should be a straightforward action, prohibitive       accreditation policies are hindering its implementation.   (4) Definition of a Year – For the purpose of assessing curricular content, ABET currently       defines one year of study as 32 semester hours (or equivalent) or one-fourth of the total       credit hours required for graduation, whichever is less. This provision effectively       rewards programs that require fewer overall credit hours and penalizes programs that       require more.   (5) Attainment of outcomes – A recent change to the ABET Engineering Accreditation       Commission’s Criterion 3 seems to suggest that programs are not required to demonstrate       that their students achieve the Student Outcomes specified in that criterion.For each of these issues, the author provides:   • a discussion of how the issue relates to the implementation of ASCE’s “Raise the Bar”       initiative;   • a summary of the actions taken by the accreditation task committee to address the issue;   • an assessment of the effectiveness of these actions; and   • recommended next steps, for consideration by the newly created ASCE Committee on       Accreditation.The paper concludes with a holistic evaluation of ASCE’s strategic-level interactions withABET, to include a discussion of the challenges associated with fundamental differences in thegoals and priorities of these two organizations.       COORDINATING NOTE:       This abstract is submitted at the specific invitation and request of Tom Lenox, the       coordinator of the ASCE Liaison Committee’s program for the CE Division of       ASEE in 2014. It should be considered for inclusion in the session that Tom       Lenox is organizing and moderating.
AU  - Stephen J. Ressler PE
AU  - Thomas A. Lenox , Dist.M.ASCE, F.ASEE
CY  - Indianapolis, Indiana
DA  - 2014/06/15
PB  - ASEE Conferences
TI  - Accreditation Issues of Strategic Importance to the Civil Engineering Profession
UR  - https://peer.asee.org/20021
DO  - 10.18260/1-2--20021
ER  -