Major U - Sample GR Statement

DRAFT [FINAL] STATEMENT MAJOR UNIVERSITY

Accreditation Board For Engineering And Technology

ENGINEERING ACCREDITATION COMMISSION

Draft and Final Statement Formats

For 2005-06 General Reviews

Major University

INSTRUCTIONS

Introduction and Discussion of Statement Construct

The Engineering Accreditation Commission (EAC) of the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) has evaluated the [program list] of [NAME OF INSTITUTION].

[THIS PARAGRAPH IS USED IN THE DRAFT STATEMENT ONLY] The statement that follows consists of two parts: the first deals with the overall institution and its engineering operation, and the second deals with the individual engineering programs. This draft statement reflects any corrections of factual errors provided by [NAME OF INSTITUTION] in its 14-day response. Information included with the 14-day response will be considered during due process. [See the example statement for the types of information to include.]

[THIS PARAGRAPH IS USED IN THE FINAL STATEMENT ONLY] This statement is the final summary of the EAC evaluation, at the institutional and engineering-program levels. It includes information received during due process, including information submitted with the 14-day response, if any. This statement consists of two parts: the first deals with the overall institution and its engineering operation, and the second deals with the individual engineering programs. It is constructed in a format that allows the reader to discern both the original visit findings and subsequent progress made during due process.

A program’s accreditation action will be (use “is” in final statement) based upon the findings summarized in this statement. Actions will (omit “will” in final statement) depend on the program’s range of compliance or non-compliance with the criteria. This range can be construed from the following terminology:

· Deficiency: A deficiency indicates that a criterion is not satisfied. Therefore, the program is not in compliance with the criteria and immediate action is required.

· Weakness: A weakness indicates that a criterion is satisfied but lacks the strength of compliance that assures that the quality of the program will not be compromised prior to the next general review. Therefore, remedial action is required to strengthen compliance with the criteria.

· Concern: A concern indicates that a criterion is currently satisfied; however, the potential exists for this situation to change in the near future such that the criterion may not be satisfied. Therefore, action is required to ensure continued full compliance with the criteria.

· Observation: An observation is a comment or suggestion that does not relate directly to the accreditation action but is offered to assist the institution in its continuing efforts to improve its programs.

[INSERT PARAGRAPH THAT PROVIDES SPECIFIC INFORMATION THAT WAS TRUE AT THE TIME OF THE VISIT. THIS IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE FACTUAL INFORMATION THAT MAY CHANGE BY THE TIME OF THE NEXT VISIT AND SHOULD BE HELPFUL TO THE NEXT VISIT TEAM]

[INSERT PARAGRAPH THAT LISTS THE SUPPORTING UNITS REVIEWED (NOT NECESSARILY VISITED). IF THEY WERE FOUND ADEQUATE SO STATE, IF NOT LIST SPECIFIC ISSUES WHERE APPROPRIATE.]

Institutional Strengths

1. Special, unique, or particularly conspicuous strengths.

Institutional Deficiencies (In numerical order of criteria, only for those criteria in which deficiencies are noted). The institutional deficiencies cited apply to all engineering programs. [NOTE THAT INSTITUTIONAL DEFICIENCIES MUST BE LISTED ON THE PROGRAM AUDIT FORM FOR EACH PROGRAM.]

[THIS SECTION IS INCLUDED IF THERE ARE INSTITUTIONAL DEFICIENCIES.]

1. Criterion XXX. Criterion Title Insert summary of findings at the time of the visit.

A. For Draft Statement

Team Chairs only
Insert bullet for 14-day response and provide summary; omit if no response is received. The original statement is not edited unless it is found to be in factual error.

Insert bullet—“The deficiency remains unresolved.” / Insert bullet—“The deficiency has been resolved.” / Insert bullet—“The deficiency is now cited as a weakness (or concern).”
Continue / End of commentary for Criterion XXX / Continue

B. For Final Statement

Team Chairs only
Insert bullet for Due Process Response and provide summary; omit if no response is received

Insert bullet—“The deficiency remains unresolved.” / Insert bullet—“The deficiency has been resolved.” / Insert bullet—“The deficiency is now cited as a weakness (or concern).”
Insert the necessary “boilerplate” language for each unresolved shortcoming. “The deficiency (or weakness, but not concern) remains and will be focus of the next review. In preparation for the review, the EAC anticipates...”

1. Criterion XXY. Criterion Title Repeat as above for any additional deficiencies…

Institutional Weakness(es) (In numerical order of criteria, only for those criteria in which weaknesses are noted). The institutional weaknesses cited apply to all engineering programs. [NOTE THAT INSTITUTIONAL WEAKNESSES MUST BE LISTED ON THE PROGRAM AUDIT FORM FOR EACH PROGRAM.]

[THIS SECTION IS INCLUDED IF THERE ARE INSTITUTIONAL WEAKNESSES.]

1. Criterion YYY. Criterion Title Insert summary of findings at the time of the visit.

A. For Draft Statement

Team Chairs only
Insert bullet for 14-day response and provide summary; omit if no response is received. The original statement is not edited unless it is found to be in factual error.
Insert bullet—“The weakness remains unresolved.” / Insert bullet—“The weakness has been resolved.” / Insert bullet—“The weakness is now cited as a concern.”
Continue / End of commentary for Criterion YYY / Continue

B. For Final Statement

Team Chairs only
Insert bullet for Due Process Response and provide summary; omit if no response is received

Insert bullet—“The weakness remains unresolved.” / Insert bullet—“The weakness has been resolved.” / Insert bullet—“The weakness is now cited as a concern.”
Insert the necessary “boilerplate” language for each unresolved weakness, but not for concerns. “The weakness remains and will be focus of the next review. In preparation for the review, the EAC anticipates…”

1. Criterion ZZZ. Criterion Title Repeat format as above for any additional weaknesses.

Institutional Concern(s) (In numerical order of criteria, only for those criteria in which concerns are noted). The institutional concerns cited apply to all engineering programs. [NOTE THAT INSTITUTIONAL CONCERNS MUST BE LISTED ON THE PROGRAM AUDIT FORM FOR EACH PROGRAM.]

1. Criterion XZZ. Criterion Title Insert summary of findings at the time of the visit.

A. For Draft Statement

Team Chairs only
Insert bullet for 14-day response and provide summary; omit if no response is received. The original statement is not edited unless it is found to be in factual error.
Insert bullet—“The concern remains unresolved.” / Insert bullet—“The concern has been resolved.”
Continue / End of commentary for Criterion XZZ

B. For Final Statement

Team Chairs only
Insert bullet for Due Process Response and provide summary; omit if no response is received
Insert bullet—“The concern remains unresolved.” / Insert bullet—“The concern has been resolved.”

1. Criterion ZZZ. Criterion Title Repeat format as above for any additional concerns.

Institutional Observations

Observations are listed in order, typically without specific reference to criteria. The institutional observations cited apply to all engineering programs.

[NORMALLY THERE WILL BE NO RESPONSES TO OBSERVATIONS. IF THERE IS, A 14-DAY OR DUE PROCESS RESPONSE BULLET CAN BE USED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE RESPONSE IF DEEMED APPROPRIATE. THE ORIGINAL STATEMENT IS NOT EDITED UNLESS IT IS FOUND TO BE IN FACTUAL ERROR.]

PROGRAM A

For the program sections follow the same outline and format as for the institutional comments: Introduction, Strengths, Deficiencies, Weaknesses, Concerns, and Observations.

PROGRAM B

Etc.

DRAFT [FINAL] STATEMENT MAJOR UNIVERSITY

Accreditation Board For Engineering And Technology

ENGINEERING ACCREDITATION COMMISSION

MAJOR UNIVERSITY

New Town, VT

DRAFT [FINAL] STATEMENT

Visit Dates: October 24-26, 200X

Introduction & Discussion of Statement Construct

The Engineering Accreditation Commission (EAC) of the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) has evaluated the civil, chemical, electrical, materials, and mechanical engineering programs of Major University.

[THIS PARAGRAPH IS USED IN THE DRAFT STATEMENT ONLY] The statement that follows consists of two parts: the first deals with the overall institution and its engineering operation, and the second deals with the individual engineering programs. This draft statement reflects any corrections of factual errors provided by Major University in its 14-day response. Information included with the 14-day response will be considered during due process. [See the example statement for the types of information to include.]

· Deficiency: A deficiency indicates that a criterion is not satisfied. Therefore, the program is not in compliance with the criteria and immediate action is required.

Major University is a comprehensive state university comprised of seven colleges. The College of Engineering and Applied Science (CEAS) offers four engineering programs, all of which were evaluated during this visit. The college has 573 students, 55 full-time faculty members, and 16 adjunct faculty members. Faculty members are active in the scholarship of both teaching and research. MU students are largely in-state students, with about 10% enrolled from out-of-state and 5% from other countries. A substantial fraction of students transfer to the CEAS from local community colleges. Eight months before the EAC of ABET accreditation visit, the college leadership was assumed by a new dean who was hired after a two-year nationwide search.

Institutional Strengths

1. Major University demonstrates a strong commitment to the philosophy and processes of quality improvement in both its administrative and academic programs. The centralized Department of Institutional Assessment, which is administered directly by the vice-chancellor’s office, is a major campus resource. The Department of Institutional Assessment has assisted all engineering programs with alumni and employer surveys. In three of the four engineering programs, the results have been used for program improvements.

2. The Office of Student Services and Career Development is highly successful in placing the graduates of the CEAS. Important services provided by this office include career counseling, workshops on interviewing readiness, and training in study skills. The office uses JOBTRAK to assist with referrals and job placement. These activities help the individual engineering programs achieve their objectives in the successful job placement of their graduates.

3. The institution recruits high-caliber students and is successful in helping these students sustain high levels of achievement, an objective cited by all of the engineering programs. Major University ranks high nationally in the number of its students who receive prestigious scholarships and fellowships (Rhodes’, Goldwater, NSF, and others).

4. The College of Engineering and Applied Science has exceptional computing facilities, which are managed and maintained from within by the college's Office of Engineering Computing. To date, budget allocations for updating of hardware and software have kept pace with faculty, staff, and student needs.

Institutional Concerns

The institutional concerns cited apply to all engineering programs.

1. Criterion 1. Students and Criterion 2. Program Educational Objectives The computerized system currently used for course scheduling does not allow many freshman and sophomore-level students in the CEAS to complete their class schedules until two weeks before the beginning of the fall semester. Because classes they request are often filled by that time, some of these students must take core courses out of sequence and/or on an overload basis. The EAC recommends that the advising system be altered to give course preferences to students who require the courses to maximize the quality and performance of the engineering students (as per Criterion 1). Criterion 2 requires “a curriculum and processes that ensure the achievement of [educational] objectives.”

· 14-day response: Evidence was provided that a plan to remedy this problem had already been under consideration by an institution-wide committee.

· The concern remains until evidence of the implementation of the plan is provided.

· Due-process response: A letter and attached university administrative forms were received indicating that the changes in class scheduling software had been implemented and tested. They are ready for the fall registration process.

· The concern is resolved.

2. Criterion 5. Faculty At the time of the EAC accreditation visit, a significant number (over 50%) of the faculty members were in the senior ranks and/or nearing retirement. Criterion 5 requires that the faculty members be of sufficient number and must have the competencies to cover all of the curricular areas of the programs. With many retirements imminent over the next several years, recruitment of new faculty members is needed to continue to satisfy this criterion.