May/June 2019

Concepts
Beyond Credit Hours

BY MICHAEL K. J. MILLIGAN, PH.D., P.E.

Lately, there has been a lot of talk about the number of credit hours required for earning a bachelor’s degree, both on a national scale and within the engineering field. While the Department of Education proposes to modify the existing federal definition of a credit hour, or even eliminate it, we should focus less on the quantity of credit hours in an academic program and more on the quality of a student’s educational experience. We need to look beyond credit hours to ensure students are being adequately prepared to enter a global workforce. Engineering education has rapidly evolved, and improved, over the past few decades, and it will continue to do so as new technologies and pedagogies emerge.

Reflecting on my own experiences, it is clear to me that engineering education has changed dramatically during my lifetime. I studied electrical engineering as an undergraduate and graduate student in the 1980s, and later as a PhD student in the 1990s. As a master’s student, I was introduced to topics that are now covered in the senior year of a typical undergraduate program. Engineering programs have incorporated more advanced coursework into bachelor’s programs because we expect more from our students. Today’s students have innovative technology at their disposal and sophisticated computing tools that allow them to perform advanced simulations and analysis. When I was an undergraduate, we couldn’t possibly have conducted such simulations because we didn’t have the computers or software that would allow us to do so—nor did industry expect that we would have exposure to such topics. As a result, courses that at one time were offered only in graduate school are now routinely offered at the undergraduate level—computer architecture, VLSI design, and digital signal processing, to name a few. An increasing number of students are also taking advanced STEM coursework in high school, thereby entering college more prepared in mathematics, computer programming, and the sciences. In addition, many of today’s high school students enter their freshmen year with some level of advanced placement credits in English, history, government, psychology, or economics. To me, it is difficult to compare the undergraduate education I experienced in the early 1980s to that of students today.

Due to the rising cost of higher education and pressure to improve graduation rates, government policy and legislation has focused on limiting the number of credit hours a program can require for completion. Just last month, the Department of Education proposed significant rewrites to the federal definition of a credit hour. As it currently stands, a credit hour in higher education typically refers to an hour of faculty instruction plus two hours of homework on a weekly basis over a single (15-week) semester.

Credit hours were designed to manage faculty workloads and standardize educational outputs. They may work for this purpose, but they are not a sign of student learning or mastery of a subject. Yet in many cases, we are still using the Carnegie Unit—a credit hour unit devised in the late 19th and early 20th centuries—as a measure of a student’s educational quality and ultimately, competence as an entry-level engineer. Just because one job applicant has a greater number of credit hours on their transcript than another, she/he does not necessarily make a better hire. During job interviews, I cannot recall anyone ever asking me how many credit hours I completed. They were much more interested in the skills I could demonstrate, the problems I could solve, and if I would be a “good fit” at the company. More credit hours do not make a more qualified engineer.

We should focus more on outputs—what students are learning, not what they are taught or how many credit hours they have taken. More importantly, how well are students prepared to enter the global workforce? At ABET, we focus on assessment of student learning and the achievement of outcomes. By demonstrating (with evidence) that programs meet our accreditation criteria, we ensure students receive the knowledge, skills, abilities, and experiences to successfully enter their profession upon graduation.

Education is about effective student learning, and we cannot equate the credit hours a student must complete to the quality of education they receive. Focusing too much on a quantitative means to determine a graduate’s qualifications will not tell you if a student is ready to begin an engineering career. Focusing on what students learn versus what they are taught is a much more effective way to determine if a student is ready to enter the workforce.

Michael K. J. Milligan, Ph.D., P.E., is executive director of ABET, which provides accreditation of programs in engineering, engineering technology, computing, and applied and natural science. He is a certified association executive.