AAC ABET Subcommittee Report for 2016 William Garrard – University of Minnesota (chair) John Sullivan – Purdue (AIAA rep to ABET Board of Delegates) Brett Anderson – Boeing David Dolling – George Washington University Jack Rutherford – Boeing Retired David Holger – Iowa State John LaGraff – Syracuse University Swami Karunamoorthy – St Louis University Valana Wells – AZ State Aaron Byerley – Air Force Academy Thomas Gagnier – Retired Lockheed Martin Mark Glauser – Syracuse University Neal Barlow – Arkansas Technical University

ABET Commissioners for AIAA EAC Commissioners Valana Wells – AZ State Univ. (2011 - 2016) Aaron Byerley – Air Force Academy (2011 - 2016) Neal Barlow – Arkansas Technical U. ( 2015 - 2020) Thomas Thompson (Alternate) – U. S. Army (2016) Demoz Gebre (Alternate) – U of MN (2016) Angela Trego (New Commissioner 2016) - Practical Aeronautics & Utah Valley University Tony Vizzini (New Commissioner 2016) – Wichita State U. ETAC Commissioner William Garrard – U of MN ( 2015 - 2020)

2015-16 Accreditation Statistics 3,569 accredited programs @ 714 institutions U.S.: 3,094 programs @ 619 institutions Global: 475 programs @ 95 institutions in 28 nations AIAA is lead for 77 EAC programs 4 ETAC programs

ABET Aero 2015-2016 Statistics Aero. Engineering - 73 BS and 1 MS Accredited Aero./Astro. Programs Aero. Engineering - 73 BS and 1 MS Astro. Engineering – 3 BS and 2 MS Total 79 (three new in 2015) 8 Overseas – 3 Saudi Arabia, 3 Turkey, 1 UAE, 1 Jordan Aeronautical Engineering Technology – 2 BS and 2 Associate Total 4 (one new in 2015) 1 Overseas - Singapore

Aero. ABET On-Site Reviews Fall 2015 15 BS Aero. Engineering (3 new – 2 overseas) 1 BS & 1 MS Astro Engineering 1 BS Aero. Engineering Tech. (new)

On-site Review Statistics 2009-2015, Year Total 2009 - 2014 82 Programs 2015 18 Programs Criterion D W C Tot. Students 3 10 13 2 Objectives 23 36 1 4 Outcomes 7 5 12 Improvement 9 21 30 8 Curriculum 6 11 18 Faculty Facilities 14 16 Support 15 Program/Policies 20 Total 68 113 183 28 46 Short Coming/ Program .01 .83 1.38 2.23 .11 .90 1.56 2.56 Before due process

Short Coming/Program 2009 - 2014 Note: before due process On-site Review Statistics 2009-2015, Before Due Process –Short Comings/Program Criterion Short Coming/Program 2009 - 2014 82 Programs Short Coming/Program 2015 18 Programs Students 0.16 0.10 Objectives 0.44 0.22 Outcomes 0.15 0.17 Improvement 0.37 Curriculum 0.11 Faculty 0.28 Facilities 0.20 0.50 Support 0.18 Program/Policies 0.24 0.33 Total Short Coming/ Program 2.23 2.56 Note: before due process

Program Evaluator Demographics 2015 Total 23 (25 Last Year) 5 (22%) Industry/Government 3 (13%) Female 1 (4%) Under represented group

Training is common & centralized for new PEVs Training of ABET PEVs Training is common & centralized for new PEVs 2 evaluators trained in 2015 (Observation Visits 2015) 1 evaluator trained in 2014 (Completed First Visit as PEV in 2015) All training in Baltimore for 2016 April 29 – May 1         May 13-15         June 3 - 5

Training of ABET PEVs (continued) 1. ABET pays all costs 2. Pre-session homework required 3. Mentors will be assigned 4. Trainers will be from all societies (must have served as team chair) 5. Only new PEVs, current PEVs are “grandfathered”, but on line refresher is required before a visit 7. Need evaluators from industry (at least 30%), females, and under represented groups 8. See abet.org for qualifications and to apply

Proposed Changes to ABET EAC Accreditation Criteria

The Proposal Student outcomes criteria streamlined from a-k to: (1-7) Ability to identify, formulate and solve engineering problems by applying principles of engineering, science and math (apply knowledge of math, science & engineering; ability to identify, formulate and solve engineering problems; ability to use techniques, skills and tools in engineering practice) Ability to apply both analysis and synthesis to the engineering design process, resulting in designs that need desired needs (ability to design a system, component or process to meet needs within constraints; ability to use techniques, skills and tools in engineering practice)

The Proposal (continued) Ability to develop and conduct appropriate experimentation, analyze and interpret data, and use engineering judgement to draw conclusions Measurement, testing and quality assurance (ability to design and conduct experiments, analyze and interpret data) Ability to communicate effectively with a range of audiences (ability to communicate effectively) Ability to recognize ethical and professional responsibilities in engineering situations and make informed judgements, which must consider the impact of engineering solutions in global, economic, environmental and societal contexts responsibilities (an understanding of professional and ethical responsibility; understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global, economic, environmental and societal context; knowledge of contemporary issues)

The Proposal (continued) Ability to recognize the ongoing need for additional knowledge and locate, evaluate, integrate and apply this knowledge appropriately (ability to engage in life-long learning) An ability to function effectively on teams that establish goals, plan tasks, meet deadlines and analyze risk and uncertainty (ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams)

The Proposal (continued) Changes to Criterion 5 (Curriculum) Definitions/explanations moved from Criterion 3 College-level mathematics and basic sciences requirement Engineering topics requirement (engineering sciences and design) Broad education component “that includes humanities and social sciences” (current language refers to “a general education component”)

Next Steps Proposal approved by EAC on “first reading” in July, 2015 Public comment period through (at least) June, 2016 Current outreach to stakeholder groups and other advocates “Second reading” at July, 2016 EAC meeting If approved then, schedule for phase-in of new criteria will be established

Get More Information Full rationale and details of the proposal: http://www.abet.org/accreditation/accreditation- criteria/accreditation-alerts/rationale-for-revising- criteria-3/ To provide feedback: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/CRIT35R2