Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 59
Educating the Engineer of 2020: Adapting Engineering Education to the New Century Appendix A The reports included here were prepared as background information for the consideration of Summit attendees prior to the meeting. They represent the opinions of the authors and are not necessarily endorsed by the Engineer of 2020 Phase II Committee. The committee wishes to express its appreciation for the efforts of the authors in preparing these reports.
OCR for page 60
Educating the Engineer of 2020: Adapting Engineering Education to the New Century This page intentionally left blank.
OCR for page 61
Educating the Engineer of 2020: Adapting Engineering Education to the New Century A Brief Summary of Cooperative Education: History, Philosophy, and Current Status Thomas M. Akins Georgia Institute of Technology In a recent survey conducted by MonsterTRAK of college graduates in 2004, 74 percent thought relevant work experience was the most important factor in securing employment, and 52 percent of employers agreed. However, 41 percent of the students had gotten no relevant experience during their undergraduate careers. For those students, finding a job and deciding on a career choice can be much more difficult than for those who have experience. Cooperative education, a time-tested method of enhancing learning, gives students such experience and enables them to achieve much more than their counterparts who are educated in the traditional way. DEFINITION/PHILOSOPHY Cooperative education primarily involves sequential training in both theory and practice; theoretical and practical training are coordinated in a progressive educational program. For both school and student, studies become “applied subjects” because theory (studies) is realized through practical application (work). With feedback from employers on student performance, cooperative education is also a great vehicle for outcome-based assessment of the undergraduate curriculum. From the employer’s point of view, the two most important elements in cooperative education are (1) the selection of workers and (2) an enlightened interest on the part of students in the work.
OCR for page 62
Educating the Engineer of 2020: Adapting Engineering Education to the New Century For the purposes of this paper, I use a traditional definition of a cooperative education program adapted from the “The Cooperative System—a Manifesto,” an article by Clement Freund in the Journal of Engineering Education in October 1946. A cooperative education program shall be one: in which curricula lead to the bachelor’s, master’s or doctoral degree that requires or permits all or some students to alternate periods of attendance at college with periods of employment in business/industry during a portion or all of one or more curricula in which such employment is constituted as a regular, continuing, and essential element in the educational process that requires such employment to be related to some phase of the branch or field of study in which the student is engaged that expects such employment to be diverse so that students have a wide range of experience that expects such employment to have work assignments with increasing levels of responsibility on successive work terms that specifies as requirements for a degree a minimum number of hours of employment and a minimum standard of performance in such employment SPECIFIC GOALS OF COOPERATIVE EDUCATION Freund also detailed five specific aims of cooperative education that are still embraced today: To impart first-hand and actual knowledge of and experience with the execution in industry/government of engineering designs, business principles, projects, and developments in all career fields. To impart understanding of and familiarity with the problems and viewpoints of working men and women. To assist students, by direct and personal experience in industry, in testing their aptitudes for their chosen careers. To enable students to adjust to employment by a gradual transition from academic pursuits to the requirements and conditions of the world of work.
OCR for page 63
Educating the Engineer of 2020: Adapting Engineering Education to the New Century To train and otherwise prepare students especially and directly for higher level administrative and operating functions. HISTORY In the 1890s, many colleges realized the need for better integration of theory and practice. At Worcester Polytechnic Institute, regular shop courses began operating a commercial shop and offering articles for sale. Students worked in the shop for foremen/instructors. The school also advised students to work in industry for 15 months between their junior and senior years. All of this was to be supplanted by an idea that took shape in the mind of Herman Schneider, a civil engineering graduate of Lehigh University who had worked his way through school. Schneider believed that his work experience had given him an advantage upon graduation. He researched the records of other Lehigh graduates and found that most of those who had shown marked ability in engineering during the early years after graduation had combined industry practice with education through part-time jobs, summer jobs, or simply by dropping out of school to work periodically. Schneider concluded that the educational values of working exceeded the monetary gains. When he joined the faculty of the University of Cincinnati in 1903 (as assistant professor of civil engineering), he envisioned a new kind of institution that would blend theory and practice so students could provide industry with the services for which they were being prepared. In September 1906, the first cooperative education program began with 12 students in mechanical engineering, 12 in electrical engineering, and 3 in chemical engineering. In the beginning, they alternated between school and work weekly, then every two weeks, then monthly, then quarterly. Other schools soon followed suit: Northeastern University in 1909, University of Pittsburgh in 1910 (although the program was discontinued for many years and reestablished in 1987), University of Detroit in 1911, and Georgia Tech in 1912. In the early years, cooperative education programs experienced various external and internal problems. External problems included: resistance among employers; recessions/depressions; wars; and resistance among labor unions. Internal problems at schools included: hesitant faculty; scheduling and alternating patterns; mandatory versus optional programs; and funding. Most of the external problems are beyond institutional control, of course. But many
OCR for page 64
Educating the Engineer of 2020: Adapting Engineering Education to the New Century schools continue to wrestle with internal problems. As Herman Schneider stated in a speech in 1929, “There are no two cooperative courses the same, and different tactics have to be used in different places. I hope there will never be two programs the same.” As the number of programs grew, it became apparent that educational professionals could benefit from sharing ideas and concerns. In 1926, the Association of Cooperative Colleges was established; it later became the Cooperative Education Division of what is now the American Society for Engineering Education. The National Commission for Cooperative Education was begun in 1962, and the Cooperative Education Association was formed in 1963. The World Association of Cooperative Education started in 1979, and there are numerous state and regional associations across the United States. Through these organizations, cooperative education programs have been able to present a united front on many issues, particularly in the area of funding for co-op programs on campuses. The federal government has been instrumental in providing seed money. In 1970, Title IV-D provided a total of more than $1.5 million. Title VIII replaced this in 1977, and by the late 1980s total grants averaged about $15 million per year. By 1989, there were more than 1,000 cooperative programs in the United States with approximately 250,000 students. Later in this paper, I review the current status of co-op programs. However, I want to turn now to a brief summary of the benefits of the cooperative education model. BENEFITS OF COOPERATIVE EDUCATION The Directory of College Cooperative Education Programs, put out by the American Council on Education, includes lists of advantages of cooperative education to students, employers, schools, and society as a whole (Hutcheson, 1966). The benefits are summarized below (in no particular order): Advantages to students enhances classroom learning through integration of theory and practice confirms or redirects career decision making
OCR for page 65
Educating the Engineer of 2020: Adapting Engineering Education to the New Century helps defray the costs of postsecondary education through wages earned expands after-graduation job opportunities teaches “soft skills,” such as communications, working on multidisciplinary teams, career assessment, resume writing, and interviewing encourages traditionally non-college-bound students to pursue postsecondary education Advantages to employers provides a pool of well prepared employees provides on-the-job performance as a basis for permanent hiring decisions enhances relations between businesses and colleges improves access to permanent employment for students from disadvantaged (underrepresented) groups makes recruitment and training more cost effective increases retention rates among permanent employees provides a means of technology (knowledge) transfer Advantages to postsecondary institutions expands the range of educational opportunities by integrating workplace learning into the academic program builds positive relationships between schools and industry enables the enrollment and education of more students without the expansion of physical facilities, especially in an alternating program in which a large number of students are at work each term provides a means of technology (knowledge) transfer Advantages to society increases the effectiveness and relevance of education by relating classroom study to the world of work promotes respect for work addresses national concerns about the preparation of the future workforce for competition in a global economy does not add costs to taxpayers because cooperative education returns sizable tax revenues from student earnings
OCR for page 66
Educating the Engineer of 2020: Adapting Engineering Education to the New Century CURRENT STATUS In 1989, there were more than 1,000 cooperative education programs of various kinds in postsecondary institutions throughout the United States; approximately 250,000 students were enrolled in these programs. At the same time, 34,089 students were enrolled in engineering and engineering technology cooperative programs at 104 schools. As Title VIII funding disappeared, however, many schools could no longer provide financial support for these programs, and, consequently, a large number of them were dissolved. The latest figures below show the number of undergraduate students participating in cooperative programs in engineering and engineering technology (Mathews, 1998, 2000, 2002, 2004): 1998, 142 schools, 38,734 students 2000, 118 schools, 31,716 students 2002, 121 schools, 36,718 students 2004, 99 schools, 34,136 students One might ask why the number of programs, and particularly the number of students, has not increased over the years. Here are some possible answers based on conjecture and anecdotal information: Students are opting for more internships, rather than making commitments to cooperative programs. More financial aid is available now than ever before, which eliminates the monetary incentive for participating in a co-op program. Because of the “blue-collar” connotation of cooperative programs, faculty and administration at many institutions have not fully embraced the idea. Some misconceptions and “myths” about cooperative education have discouraged participation (e.g., that it takes longer to graduate; that co-op students cannot participate in campus activities or study abroad, etc.). Recent research at Georgia Tech has shown that rising family income levels of entering students and the availability of other options, such as undergraduate research and internships, have been major factors
OCR for page 67
Educating the Engineer of 2020: Adapting Engineering Education to the New Century in the declining enrollment in cooperative education at that institution. Interestingly, students who participate in cooperative programs at Georgia Tech actually do take about six months longer to graduate, but they enroll in fewer school terms to do so, thus saving tuition money in the long run. Many of these students also participate in study abroad programs and undergraduate research, which dispels some widely held misconceptions. ACCREDITATION DATA I would be remiss if I did not mention the value of co-op programs to the accreditation of engineering programs. Recently, accrediting organizations, including the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET), have moved toward outcomes-based assessments of programs. Engineering Criteria 2000, which was begun by ABET several years ago, includes students’ ability to perform certain functions, such as working on multidisciplinary teams, applying engineering knowledge, and so forth. Consequently, engineering deans and provosts at many institutions have discovered the value of data collected by their co-op programs. In fact, information gathered from employers’ evaluations of co-op students’ performance has been invaluable in determining, from a third-party source, if the education received on campus is not only thorough, but also relevant enough to prepare individuals for the transition from “student” to professional. CONCLUSION In the future, there will be many models for engineering education. However, the concept of cooperative education still makes good fiscal sense, good pedagogical sense, and good career sense. Cooperative education opens a myriad of possibilities for anyone pursuing a formal education at the postsecondary level. Although its form may change from one generation to the next, there is no substitute for blending practical application with theory learned in the classroom, and there is no better laboratory than the real world. Future leaders of technology must have experience outside the classroom to function effectively.
OCR for page 68
Educating the Engineer of 2020: Adapting Engineering Education to the New Century REFERENCES Freund, C.J. 1946. The co-operative system: a manifesto. Journal of Engineering Education 37(2): 117–120. Hutcheson, P., ed. 1996. Directory of College Cooperative Programs. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education. Mathews, J.M., ed. 1998. Directory of Engineering and Engineering Technology Co-op Programs. Mississippi State, Miss.: Cooperative Education Division of the American Society for Engineering Education. Mathews, J.M., ed. 2000. Directory of Engineering and Engineering Technology Co-op Programs. Mississippi State, Miss.: Cooperative Education Division of the American Society for Engineering Education. Mathews, J.M., ed. 2002. Directory of Engineering and Engineering Technology Co-op Programs. Mississippi State, Miss.: Cooperative Education Division of the American Society for Engineering Education. Mathews, J.M., ed. 2004. Directory of Engineering and Engineering Technology Co-op Programs. Mississippi State, Miss.: Cooperative Education Division of the American Society for Engineering Education. MonsterTRAK. 2004. College Graduation Survey. Maynard, Mass.: Monster. Available online at http://www.monster.com. Schneider, H. 1929. Remarks delivered at the 4th Annual Conference of the Association of Cooperative Colleges, June 21, 1929, Columbus, Ohio. Washington, D.C.: American Society for Engineering Education.
OCR for page 69
Educating the Engineer of 2020: Adapting Engineering Education to the New Century Information Technology in Support of Engineering Education: Lessons from the Greenfield Coalition Donald R. Falkenburg Greenfield Coalition Wayne State University Many studies have focused on the impact of information technology (IT). To frame the discussion in this paper, I call your attention to two quotes from a section called Technology Futures in Preparing for the Revolution: Information Technology and the Future of the Research University published by the National Academies Press (NRC, 2002). From the average user’s point of view, the exponential rate dictated by Moore’s Law will drive increases of 100 to 1,000 in computing speed, storage capacity, and bandwidth every decade. At that pace, today’s $1,000-notebook computer will, by the year 2020, have a computing speed of 1 million gigahertz, a memory of thousands of terabytes, and linkages to networks at data transmission speeds of gigabits per second. … [T]he world of the user could be marked by increasing technological sophistication. With virtual reality, individuals may routinely communicate with one another through simulated environments, or “telepresence,” perhaps delegating their own digital representations—“software agents,” or tools that collect, organize, relate, and summarize knowledge on behalf of their human masters—to interact in a virtual world with those of their colleagues. As communications technology increases in power by 100 fold (or more) each decade, such digitally mediated human interactions could take place with essentially any degree of fidelity desired.
OCR for page 134
Educating the Engineer of 2020: Adapting Engineering Education to the New Century the United States and include a wide range of institutional types—a small stand-alone school of engineering, a large public engineering school, several university-based programs, a Catholic university, and a school that serves many first-generation college students and transfer students. Thus, striking similarities and important variations among the schools are described. The study team visited these schools during the first six months of 2002, interviewing more than 200 faculty and 200 students and administrators and observing 60 classes. An important goal of the data analysis has been to develop a clear picture of how administrators, faculty, and students understand the nature of engineering practice and to identify a set of core ideas that are consistent across these groups and in line with published analyses of the essential features of the profession. The resulting conception of what an engineer is and what an engineer does is laid out in the first chapter and provides a “backbone” for the book. In subsequent chapters, curricula and pedagogies are described in some detail and then examined with reference to how well they contribute to preparation for the practice of engineering. Draft chapters addressing the three main components of the curriculum—analysis, laboratory, and design courses—are finished, as are detailed outlines of the other chapters. A draft of the full manuscript should be completed by the summer of 2005. REFERENCE Brown, J.S., A. Collins, and S.E. Newman. 1989. Cognitive apprenticeship: teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L.B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, Learning, and Instruction: Essays in Honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453-494). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
OCR for page 135
Educating the Engineer of 2020: Adapting Engineering Education to the New Century International Recognition of Engineering Degrees, Programs, and Accreditation Systems Kevin Sweeney Miami University As economic globalization increases, we must bring down artificial barriers that limit workforce mobility. One way to increase mobility is through the mutual recognition of degrees, degree programs, and accreditation systems. Some places—Europe, for example—have a strong desire to work towards global harmonization, and, given the expansion of the European Union (EU) and its need for workforce mobility, regional harmonization as well. This has provoked a great deal of activity, especially in countries that do not have recognized accreditation systems in place, or even a tradition of accreditation, such as Germany. The United States, which has a strong tradition of engineering accreditation, is also working toward global recognition of accreditation methods. Mutual recognition and accreditation will not only benefit graduates in a particular country, but will also promote quality control and attract students to national degree programs. It is generally accepted that a competent practicing engineer must have the following qualifications: a strong education that teaches analytical and theoretical thinking that enables problem solving, innovation, and invention training in working with people from diverse backgrounds and solving technical problems work experience, including responsibility for making decisions
OCR for page 136
Educating the Engineer of 2020: Adapting Engineering Education to the New Century As Jack Levy (EUR ING Professor at the City University in the United Kingdom) has said (2002), “While these components of competence of professionalism are needed, the way they are acquired varies, as does the point at which the national professional title is awarded … [and] the length of the academic course may vary widely, from three years to five or more years.” In the following sections, current activities dealing with mutual recognition of accreditation of engineering degree programs, engineering technologist degree programs, and the professional level for registered engineering practitioners are summarized. ENGINEERING DEGREE PROGRAMS Washington Accord The Washington Accord was signed in 1989 by the groups in Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States responsible for accrediting professional engineering degree programs in their countries. The accord recognizes “substantial equivalency” of the programs accredited by the signatories and satisfaction of the “academic requirements for the practice of engineering at the professional level.” The accord states that the “processes, policies and procedures” used in the accreditation of academic programs are comparable and “recommends that graduates of accredited programs in any of the signatory countries be recognized by the other countries as having met the academic requirements for entry to the practice of engineering” (Washington Accord, 2004). The Washington Accord has several limitations. First, it covers professional engineering undergraduate programs but not engineering technology or postgraduate programs. Second, it does not apply to degree programs accredited before signing by the accrediting body. Third, it does not apply to degree programs declared or recognized as “substantially equivalent” by the signatories. Finally, it covers only the academic requirements of licensing, but not the actual licensing, which still varies from country to country. Interest in the Washington Accord has increased significantly since it was signed in 1989. Two more countries have signed on since then and are now full signatories: Hong Kong in 1995 and South Africa in
OCR for page 137
Educating the Engineer of 2020: Adapting Engineering Education to the New Century 1999. Four countries have been added as provisional signatories: Japan in 2001 and Germany, Malaysia, and Singapore in 2003. In addition, the accreditation bodies of India and Bangladesh have recently expressed their intent to submit applications for provisional membership, and Russia and Korea have sent representatives to meetings of the Washington Accord signatories. Alec Hay, chairman of the International Committee of the Engineering Council of South Africa, stated while reporting on a June 2001 meeting on the Washington Accord that “Being a signatory to the WA [Washington Accord] remains therefore a significant development for South Africa and is in line with the Government’s perspective that the standards in engineering should meet international standards.” A recent paper by Professor M.K. Khanijo (2004), senior consultant with the Engineering Council of India, describes India’s motivation for signing on to the Washington Accord: “Since GATS [General Agreement of Trade in Services] emphasizes recognition of qualifications of professionals, it is in India’s interest to get its own system of recognition and registration made acceptable at the international level. If this is not done, Indian engineers will be at a disadvantage and may even be ruled out when they seek opportunities for employment.” Although membership in the Washington Accord is considered by many national accreditation agencies as the best path towards international recognition, some concerns remain about whether developing nations can be accepted as full members. The EUR ING Professional Title The Fédération Européenne d’Associations Nationales d’Ingénieurs (FEANI) (translated as the European Federation of National Engineering Associations) is a federation of national engineering associations from the EU, European Free Trade Association, and countries considered “eligible for accession into the EU” at a future time. Currently, FEANI, which has 26 member countries representing more than two million professional engineers, considers itself “the single voice for the engineering profession in Europe” and is working to “affirm and develop the professional identity of engineers.” The European Commission recognizes FEANI as the official representative of the engineering profession in Europe (FEANI, 2005).
OCR for page 138
Educating the Engineer of 2020: Adapting Engineering Education to the New Century One of the services provided by FEANI, the granting of the EUR ING professional title, is intended to “facilitate the mutual recognition of engineering qualifications in Europe” and (1) facilitate mobility by assigning a “guarantee of competence” to engineers who wish to practice outside their own countries, (2) provide information to employers about educational and training systems in Europe, and (3) encourage continuous improvements in the quality of engineers by monitoring and reviewing standards. Currently, slightly fewer than 30,000 registered engineers have been granted the EUR ING title. FEANI maintains an index of universities and other institutions of higher education and their engineering degree programs recognized as fulfilling the mandatory educational requirements for the EUR ING title. Member countries submit descriptions of schools and degree programs for inclusion in the FEANI Index upon approval by the European Monitoring Committee. The FEANI Index is intended to be the “authoritative source of information about national engineering education systems and educational institutions” (FEANI, 2000). Other Pan-European Organizations The European Standing Observatory for the Engineering Profession and Education (ESOEPE), which is associated with FEANI, comprises organizations concerned “with quality assurance and accreditation of engineering programmes, including national and trans-national (European) bodies, Associations or temporary networks.” ESOEPE has aspirations of becoming the European body dealing with accreditation (FEANI, 2001). In fact, ESOEPE has considered changing its name to the European Consortium for Engineering Accreditation. The European Parliament is currently considering a directive [COM(2004)317] that would accelerate the processing of requests for recognition of qualifications by giving more automatic recognition to engineers who meet certain agreed criteria. The purpose would be to bridge differences in education and training and make it easier for engineers and other professionals to work anywhere in the EU. Many other pan-European organizations are addressing the issue of mutual recognition of accreditation and quality control in higher education. Currently, there is a good deal of discussion, even competition, about which models for European-wide accreditation of degrees will
OCR for page 139
Educating the Engineer of 2020: Adapting Engineering Education to the New Century prevail and which organizations will take the lead. Some of these organizations are listed below: The European Consortium for Accreditation in Higher Education (ECA) was established in 2003 to achieve “mutual recognition of accreditation decisions among the participants before the end of 2007” (ECA, 2003). The European Network for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA) was “established to promote European cooperation in the field of quality assessment and quality assurance between all actors involved in the quality assurance process” (ENQA, 2000). The Network of Central and Eastern European Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education (CEE Network), founded in 2001, was established “to serve as a clearinghouse for issues on quality assurance in higher education in the Central and Eastern European countries” (CEE Network, 2001). The Joint Quality Initiative, “an informal network for quality assurance and accreditation of bachelor and master programmes in Europe,” is based on the Bologna Declaration of 1999 and the Prague Communiqué of 2001. The Joint Quality Initiative works to “adopt a higher education system essentially based on two main cycles, to co-operate in quality assurance, to design scenarios for mutual acceptance of evaluation and accreditation/certification mechanisms, to collaborate in establishing a common framework of reference, and to disseminate best practice” (Joint Quality Initiative, 2000). The European Network of Information Centers (ENIC Network) was formed “to develop policy and practice for the recognition of qualifications” and to provide information on the recognition of foreign diplomas, degrees, and other qualifications; educational systems throughout Europe; and opportunities for studying abroad, including information on loans and scholarships and answers to practical questions related to mobility and equivalence (ENIC, 1999). The National Academic Recognition Information Centers Network (NARIC Network) was initiated by the European Commission in 1984 to improve academic recognition of diplomas
OCR for page 140
Educating the Engineer of 2020: Adapting Engineering Education to the New Century and periods of study in EU member states, EEA countries, and associated countries in Central and Eastern Europe and Cyprus (NARIC, 1984). ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY DIPLOMA/DEGREE PROGRAMS Sydney Accord Signed in 2001, the Sydney Accord, which provides for joint recognition of academic programs for engineering technologists, is based on the Washington Accord and operates in a similar way. Current members include the national engineering organizations of Ireland, the United Kingdom, Canada, South Africa, Hong Kong, Australia, and New Zealand. Dublin Accord Signed in 2002, the Dublin Accord, which provides joint recognition of academic programs for engineering technicians, is also based on the Washington Accord and operates in a similar way. Representatives of the national engineering organizations of the United Kingdom, South Africa, Canada, and Ireland have all signed on to this agreement (Dublin Accord, 2002). THE PROFESSIONAL LEVEL OF REGISTERED PRACTITIONERS Engineers Mobility Forum The Engineers Mobility Forum (EMF), established in October 1997, was initially formed as a subcommittee of the Washington Accord signatories to facilitate the mobility of experienced professional engineers. Unlike the Washington Accord, which focuses on mutual recognition of accredited academic programs, EMF is developing “a system of mutual recognition of the full professional level to facilitate cross-border mobility of registered practitioners.” This is especially important for currently practicing engineers whose qualifications are not recognized through the Washington Accord (EMF, 2003).
OCR for page 141
Educating the Engineer of 2020: Adapting Engineering Education to the New Century EMF maintains a decentralized Register of International Engineers that includes the names of professional engineers in member countries who meet very specific educational and experiential guidelines. The purpose of the registry is to streamline the process of obtaining practice privileges in EMF-member countries. The registry is “decentralized” in the sense that each country operates its own section and writes its own “assessment statement” describing the admission requirements for that country. A monitoring committee in each country develops the assessment statement, reviews applications for admission to the registry, and functions as the point of contact for all matters relating to the registry. EMF members include the national engineering organizations of Ireland, the United Kingdom, United States, Canada, South Africa, Hong Kong, Australia, Japan, Malaysia, Korea, and New Zealand. FEANI has observer status, and India and Bangladesh have expressed an interest in joining EMF. With the signing of the EMF Agreement in June 2001, the International Register of Professional Engineers (IRoPE) was established (IPENZ, 2000). The requirements for entrants to the registry are listed below (BCS, 2005): registration in a signatory jurisdiction accredited degree or equivalent academic qualification seven years postgraduate experience two years of work with responsibility for engineering work maintenance of continuing professional development Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Engineer Register Similar to IRoPE, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Engineer Register is an initiative that facilitates cross-border mobility for professional engineers in the APEC region. An APEC Engineer Register has been established in Australia, Canada, Hong Kong China, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, the Philippines, Thailand, and the United States. In the United States, the EMF and APEC registers are maintained by the U.S. Council for International Engineering Practice (USCIEP), which was established to “develop and promote procedures to enable U.S.-registered professional engineers to practice internationally” (USCIEP, 2004). Member organizations of USCIEP include the
OCR for page 142
Educating the Engineer of 2020: Adapting Engineering Education to the New Century Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET), the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying, the National Society of Professional Engineers, and the Association of Consulting Engineers of Canada. Requirements for admission to the USCIEP Registry include licensing in one or more jurisdictions of the United States and the qualifications listed below: graduation from an accredited program (either via ABET or the Washington Accord) a passing grade on the Fundamentals of Engineering examination a passing grade on one or more of the Principles and Practice of Engineering assessment examinations no sanctions resulting in a suspension or revocation by any jurisdiction of the engineering practice license at least five references from licensed professional engineers familiar with the candidate’s work, character, and integrity periodic updates of the professional activities record and testimonials from professional references at least seven years of qualifying experience (at least four at the time of initial registration as a professional engineer) at least two years of experience in charge of significant engineering work as defined in the USCIEP Assessment Statement minimum standards for continuing professional competence as a condition of remaining on the registry as defined in the USCIEP Assessment Statement citizenship in the United States Engineering Technologists Mobility Forum Similar to the EMF, the Engineering Technologists Mobility Forum (ETMF) was established to remove “artificial barriers to the free movement and practice of certified/registered/licensed engineering technologists amongst their jurisdictions.” The agreement specifically covers the process by which substantial equivalence in competence of practitioners is established. Signatories of ETMF include Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, South Africa, and the United Kingdom (IPENZ, 2004).
OCR for page 143
Educating the Engineer of 2020: Adapting Engineering Education to the New Century Other Agreements Many bilateral and multilateral agreements have been established between countries and organizations. Although these agreements may still be important, especially on a regional level, they are rapidly being preempted by large-scale, multinational, mutual agreements. REFERENCES BCS (British Computer Society). 2005. International Register of Professional Engineers: Entry Criteria. Available online at http://www.bcs.org/BCS/MembersArea/InternationalEng/EntryCriteria.htm. CEE Network (Network of Central and Eastern European Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education). 2001. About the CEE Network. Available online at http://www.ceenetwork.hu/a_about.html. Dublin Accord. 2002. The Dublin Accord, Recognition of Equivalence of Educational Base for Engineering Technicians. Available online at http://www.ecsa.co.za/International/6DublinAccord/Dublin%20Accord%20Agreement%2013May2002.pdf. ECA (European Consortium for Accreditation in Higher Education). 2003. About ECA. Available online at http://www.ecaconsortium.net. EMF (Engineers Mobility Forum). 2003. A Review of Recognition Systems for Professional Engineers. In Global Challenges in Engineering Education: Proceedings of the 2003 ASEE/WFEO International Colloquium on Engineering Education. Washington, D.C.: American Society for Engineering Education. Also available online at http://www.asee.org/about/events/conferences/international/papers/upload/A-Review-of-Recognition-Systems.pdf. ENIC (European Network of Information Centers). 1999. The European Gateway to Recognition of Academic and Professional Qualifications. Available online at http://www.enic-naric.net. ENQA (European Network for Quality Assurance in Higher Education). 2000. About ENQA. Available online at http://www.enqa.net. FEANI (Fédération Européenne d’Associations Nationales d’Ingénieurs). 2000. FEANI Index. Available online at http://www.feani.org/FEANIindex.htm. FEANI. 2001. European Standing Observatory for the Engineering Profession and Education (ESOEPE). Available online at http://www.feani.org/ESOEPE/Bye-lawsFIN.htm. FEANI. 2005. FEANI—The Voice of Europe’s Engineers. Available online at http://www.feani.org. Hay, A.J. 2001. International Affairs Consolidated Report: Meetings of the Washington Accord, Sydney Accord, Engineers Mobility Forum and Engineering Technologists’ Mobility Forum, Thornybush Game Reserve, June 20–26, 2001, South Africa. Available online at http://www.ecsa.co.za. IPENZ (Institution of Professional Engineers New Zealand). 2000. Engineers Mobility Forum Agreement: To Establish and Maintain an EMF International Register of Professional Engineers. Final draft. Available online at http://www.ipenz.org.nz/ipenz/forms/pdfs/EMF_Agreement.pdf.
OCR for page 144
Educating the Engineer of 2020: Adapting Engineering Education to the New Century IPENZ. 2004. Engineering Technologists Mobility Forum, MOU, Signed June 2001 at Thornybush Game Reserve, South Africa. Available online at http://www.ipenz.org.nz/ipenz/finding/etmf/MOU.cfm. Joint Quality Initiative. 2000. Joint Quality Initiative Website Welcome. Available online at http://www.jointquality.org. Khanijo, M.K. 2004. Implications of GATS on the engineering profession. Available online at http://www.iete.info/ECI/ImplicationsGATS.htm. Levy, J. 2002. International Recognition of Engineering Qualifications. In The Renaissance Engineer of Tomorrow: Proceedings of the 30th SEFI Annual Conference. Brussels, Belgium: European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI). NARIC (National Academic Recognition Information Centers Network). 1984. The European Gateway to Recognition of Academic and Professional Qualifications. Available online at http://www.enic-naric.net. USCIEP (U.S. Council for International Engineering Practice). 2004. What Is USCIEP? Available online at http://www.usciep.org/what_is.shtml. Washington Accord. 2004. Frequently Asked Questions. Available online at http://www.washingtonaccord.org/wash_accord_faq.html.
Representative terms from entire chapter: