1. 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

2. ABET Commissioners for AIAA
EAC Commissioners Valana Wells – AZ State Univ. ( ) Aaron Byerley – Air Force Academy ( ) Neal Barlow – Arkansas Technical U. ( ) 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 ( )

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

4. ABET Aero 2015-2016 Statistics Aero. Engineering - 73 BS and 1 MS
Accredited Aero./Astro. Programs
Aero. Engineering 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

5. 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)

6. On-site Review Statistics 2009-2015,
Year
Total
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

7. Short Coming/Program 2009 - 2014 Note: before due process
On-site Review Statistics , Before Due Process –Short Comings/Program
Criterion
Short Coming/Program
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

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

9. 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
        June 3 - 5

10. 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

12. Proposed Changes to ABET EAC Accreditation Criteria

13. 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)

14. 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)

15. 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)

16. 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”)

17. 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

18. Get More Information
Full rationale and details of the proposal: criteria/accreditation-alerts/rationale-for-revising- criteria-3/
To provide feedback: