Mutual Recognition of EUR-ACE Labelled Engineering Degree Programmes At the last LC meeting on Jan 25, 2003, it was agreed that a WG consisting of Mr. T. Dogu (Chair), Mr. D. McGrath and a representative from Portugal (Mrs. S. Teles) would be established to work on a proposal on mutual recognition of engineering degree programmes which have been awarded the EUR-ACE label by different ENAEE authorized agencies. Since a new representative was not named from Portugal, Mrs. S. Teles took the responsibility to contribute to this WG as the Portugal member. We, as the WG members, decided to circulate the following discussion paper among the members of the LC. The WG would appreciate receiving responses from each LC member within a month. Based on the responses from all of the members of LC, a proposal will be prepared by the WG and submitted to LC. Important Comment: We, as the WG, believe that in order to have such a mutual recognition agreement to be effective, it must be unanimously agreed by all EUR-ACE labelling agencies. Agreed, but it is not enough: mutual recognition will be effective only if accepted by the bodies legally in charge of degree recognition in the concerned countries, that not always coincide with the EUR-ACE agencies. Definition IF: I agree with Giuliano s comment, but the first step must be to establish mutual recognition between agencies, or at least the basis for such an agreement JCA Yes we cannot go around this first step. A mutual recognition agreement between ENAEE authorised agencies means that an agency (the host agency) in one country recognises the substantial equivalence of EURACE Labelled engineering degree programmes from ENAEE authorised agencies in other countries, as though they had been accredited by the host agency in its country. Question: Do you agree with this definition? If not, what modifications do you propose? I would drop the word substantial in the second line (if I am not mistaken, also the WA does not use it any more). Moreover, insert always the hyphen in EUR-ACE (here missing in the third line) and refer to EUR-ACE authorized agencies (not ENAEE authorized ). JCA : Mutual Recognition can be understood at Agency level, at degree level and at individual level. - 1 -
Also we would like to differentiate assessment and accreditation. The first step that can be considered is assessment at the Agency level: an Eur-Ace authorized agency has often a set of standards in addition to the EUR-ACE standards. At Agency level mutual recognition could mean in practice that Agency A accepts a the programme assessments carried out by Agency B. More precisely Agency A would recognize as experts the experts working for Agency B and would accept the assessment documents produced by Agency B. Agency A would only assess on its additional criteria. It could even delegate this assessment to Agency B. At programme level and at individual level what could be the effect of mutual recognition in country like France where the engineering profession is not regulated? This means that for recruitment purposes a company is free to determine which level of academic training and which prior experience is required for a particular appointment. A possible approach in this case could be that CTI could issue on request a kind of certificate in French - stating that For First Cycle Programmes : Programme X was awarded the EUR-ACE label, an European label for degree programmes in Engineering. The awarding criteria for these were defined by the CTI together with 8 other European Accreditation agencies. The level of this degree corresponds to that of a licence in the French system. For Second Cycle Programmes : Programme X was awarded the EUR-ACE label, an European label for degree programmes in Engineering. The awarding criteria for these were defined by the CTI together with 8 other European Accreditation agencies. The academic level of this degree corresponds to that of a Diplôme d ingénieur/master in the French system. Holders of this degree meet the academic requirements to apply for doctoral studies or to apply for a position a Ingénieur in the industry. Expected benefits of mutual recognition of EUR-ACE labels (a) Engineers work globally and carry out projects all over the world. If their engineering qualifications are recognised/accepted in the countries which are outside their home countries, their ability to carry out their work effectively will be easier. (b) The requirement for countries to recognise external qualifications means that the educational standards of all engineering qualifications will have to be maintained at a globally recognised level. (c) In the EU, the Directive requiring member states to recognise each other s qualifications when these relate to regulated professions, will be more easily implemented in the case of engineering, when there is mutual recognition of engineering education programmes through the EUR-ACE labelling system. Similarly, the Engineering Professional Card will be facilitated. - 2 -
(d) At present, the only benefit associated with EUR-ACE labelled programmes is in relation to the exchange of ideas and the professional standard of such programmes, as they are regarded as being in accordance with the opinions of the engineering profession. Mutual recognition of EUR-ACE labels will facilitate mobility and also licensing professional engineering practice within EU. Question: Do you agree with these statements, describing some of the benefits of mutual recognition of EUR-ACE labels? Do you propose any other benefits of such an agreement for mutual recognition of EUR-ACE labels? I substantially agree... (pardon my joke) Difficulties/problems for mutual recognition of EUR-ACE labels I insert some comments within the text, and then answer the questions. (a) In the case of First Cycle programmes, there is significant variability in relation to certain programme characteristics as follows: -The duration of first cycle programmes varies between three years (180 ECTS credits) and four years (240 ECTS credits) throughout the EUR-ACE system. -The entry standard of the more applied or practical programmes are at a relatively low level in subjects such as mathematics and science subjects compared to the higher standard in relation to the entry requirements of the more theoretical programmes. Many of the more theoretical first cycle programmes lead directly, without further studies, to a second-cycle Master degree programme, while in the case of first cycle (Bachelor) applied programmes, students are required to carry out additional bridging studies before being eligible for admission to second cycle (Master) degree programmes. -The above factors result in variability between the programme content and academic standard (in relation to mathematics, basic sciences, basic engineering sciences relevant to the specific discipline, general education component complementing the technical content and major design experience) as between first cycle engineering degree programmes. I agree, but an analogous variability occurs in SC (Master) programmes: see point (b) below. IF: This is an important matter, and I agree with Giuliano that it can also apply to SC, although perhaps not so obviously as to FC programmes. I think the issue is this. Do we authorise an Agency to award the EUR-ACE Label if the Agency s standards do not meet, to an acceptable standard, all the requirements specified in the EUR-ACE Framework? Our immediate response is that such an Agency would not be authorised to award the EUR-ACE Label to accredited programmes. Such a programme could well be - 3 -
accredited because it has satisfied all the accreditation requirements of the Agency concerned. However the standards of such an Agency could reflect local circumstances to accredit programmes such as, for example Engineering with Business Studies, in which engineering topics have been omitted in order to accommodate Business Studies. The academic standard of the engineering could be fully consistent with the standards in the EUR-ACE requirements except for the omission of one or more specified topics. Such programmes could well meet local needs, be popular with students, and produce graduates that are welcomed by industry. IF: I think there are three options, all of which have disadvantages: 1. We do not authorise Agencies whose standards for accreditation do not require that all the EUR-ACE Framework requirements are satisfied. However to do so would exclude from the award of the Label many other programmes accredited by the Agency, which may be the nationally recognised agency, that fully meet all the Framework requirements. Such programmes could of course seek accreditation by another authorised Agency. 2. We relax our criteria and authorise agencies that have requirements which do not fully satisfy those of the EUR-ACE framework. The drawback to this option is that our published standards are compromised, and potentially there could be very difficult decisions to be made about the flexibility of interpretation. 3. We authorise the Agency to award labels to those accredited programmes that satisfy the requirements of the EUR-ACE Framework, and forbid the Agency to award Labels to those accredited programmes that do not satisfy the requirements. This might complicate matters. Any other ideas? JCA : the third option seems the best to me. The CTI does not award the EUR-ACE label to all programmes that it accredits. I observed similar practice in other countries. Conversely there may be the case already mentioned - of programmes meeting all EUR-ACE criteria, accredited by an authorized Agency in a country, but not meeting all the additional criteria required by another authorized Agency in another country. - 4 -
(b) It is important to state that the definition of the learning experience involved in engineering degree programmes comprises entry standards (input), the curriculum content and standard (process), programme duration (process) and the programme outcomes (output). All four are required and programme outcomes alone cannot define this experience. Agreed: but note that the duration of Master programmes varies between four and six years; some lead immediately to professional activities (e.g. in France), some require formal professional training (e.g. in U.K.). I underline that Integrated Master Programmes (i.e. programmes leading directly to a SC degree) must be comprised in these considerations. (c) Some of the ENAEE authorized agencies are also signatories to the Washington Accord with their four or five year programs. Equivalency of 180 ECTS and 240 ECTS EUR-ACE labelled programs may have the potential to create problems in relation to Washington Accord. I find this statement very much disturbing. ENAEE should not be concerned with problems created to the WA, just as I do not believe WA is concerned with problems created to ENAEE. Dialogue is one thing, substantial subordination another. Question: Do you agree with these statements, describing some of the problems/difficulties of mutual recognition of EUR-ACE labels? Do you propose any other problems/difficulties of such an agreement for mutual recognition of EUR-ACE labels? I have already implicitly answered. I agree with the statements, but see analogous difficulties in mutual recognition of FC and SC degrees. Suggestions of WG a) Due to the variability of durations, programme content and academic standards of first cycle programs and considering the difficulties/problems outlined above, mutual recognition of EUR-ACE labelled first cycle degree programmes is not possible at the moment. (b) In relation to the mutual recognition of Second Cycle EUR-ACE labelled (Master) engineering degree programmes (and 5 year combined programs) there is greater consistency between the characteristics defining the learning experience. In that respect mutual recognition should be possible. Question: Do you agree with these proposals? If not why and what is your suggestion? - 5 -
I strongly disagree with statement (a). I have already pointed out that analogous difficulties arise for FC and SC degree programmes. I add that the alternative (FC or SC) labelling is the main characteristic of the EUR-ACE accreditation system: to renounce to it would make EUR-ACE fully equivalent to other accreditation systems (e.g. WA). I would therefore go ahead with looking for mutual recognition of both FC and SC EUR-ACE labels. Some other comments of WG members (a) The basis for establishing successful mutual recognition agreements is generally believed to be dependent on mutual trust and confidence between participants. Within ENAEE, this trust and confidence must be between members of the Label Committee (LC) in respect of the way their respective agencies carry out their accreditation work and how the EFS criteria and Standards for Accreditation Agencies are implemented in each agency s jurisdiction. We are at a good time for further developing this trust as a large number of agency reviews are about to be carried out by the LC. If mutual recognition is to be established at any level within ENAEE it is essential that these reviews are carried out rigorously. If this happens, mutual trust and confidence will be facilitated. (b) The above comments relate only to mutual recognition between EUR-ACE labelled degree programmes. The ultimate goal must be mutual recognition as between these programmes and those in the International Engineering Alliance (IEA) i.e. Washington, Sydney and Dublin Accords, as appropriate. However, there are significant and fundamental differences between EUR-ACE labelled programmes and those within the IEA. The first step must be mutual recognition between EUR-ACE labelled programmes. Further international recognition must be considered as a longer term goal. However, the dialogue, in relation to engineering education and accreditation matters which currently exists between the IEA and ENAEE, must continue. (c) EFS and the Standards for Accreditation Agencies may be reviewed with a view to enabling further mutual recognition at the First Cycle level. The inconsistencies in the learning experience characteristics of the current EUR- ACE labelled first cycle degree programmes may also be reviewed. Questions: Your other comments are appreciated. I agree with the above comments, but add that there must be trust and confidence not only between members of the Label Committee but throughout ENAEE: therefore, in statement (a) the Administrative Council and the General Assembly must be quoted besides the LC. T. Dogu, D. McGrath, S. Telles (and G.Augusti for the comments in italics) - 6 -