Five of Penn's Engineering programs are expected to be labeled "deficient" in their methods by a national engineering accreditation board.
The School of Engineering and Applied Science is currently in the middle of a nearly year-long evaluation process -- run by the Accreditation Board of Engineering and Technology, a national engineering school accreditor -- to ensure that it is up to established standards in its field.
Though the eight Engineering programs being evaluated have not yet even received preliminary evaluations, administrators already know that the electrical, computer and telecommunications, systems, computer science and chemical engineering programs have not met the accreditation board's standards.
According to Engineering Associate Dean Sampath Kannan, the programs will be labeled deficient in their methods of gaining feedback on "what's working and what isn't."
But Engineering Dean Eduardo Glandt says the rating is not a big problem. It is simply "a slap on the wrist" compared to the many other criteria the accreditor considers, he said.
The feedback process involves evaluating whether each department is meeting its teaching objectives by surveying current students, alumni and faculty members and the employers and graduate schools to which Engineering students go after graduation.
This type of feedback provides "quality control" for student learning, Glandt said.
And according to accreditors, the Engineering School's system is not up to par.
The three remaining programs -- materials science, mechanical engineering and bioengineering -- should be "clear of deficiencies," Kannan said.
The accreditation board labels problem areas within departments as "concerns," "weaknesses" or "deficiencies," with deficiency being the worst, depending on the severity of the problem.
The School of Engineering goes through re-accreditation every six years. The current accreditation process began in November, when the accreditation board sent evaluators to look at Penn's engineering programs.
The evaluators sat in on lectures, talked to students, met with almost all the faculty and reviewed syllabi, student work and exams for every course.
After the visit, the evaluators gave the programs verbal reviews.
Glandt expects to receive preliminary written reports by early March, after which the programs will have 30 days to show that they will implement the necessary changes. They can also rebut the evaluators' criticisms at this point.
The final report will be issued over the summer.
The consequences of unimproved programs vary from denial of accreditation -- an unlikely worst-case scenario, according to Kannan -- to having to file a progress report in two years.
Any program's failure to be re-accredited would be a major problem for students, since having attended an accredited institution is important when applying for graduate schools or engineering jobs.
"Accreditation is what gives your degree value when you graduate," Engineering sophomore Larry Dooling said.
Though Materials Science Engineering Professor Karen Winey's program performed among the best in the Engineering School, she said that it did get some criticism -- though less than what was received by the five deficient programs -- for its methods of assessing student learning.
Winey attributes the problems the Engineering School programs are having to the need to constantly change to fit evolving accreditation board standards.
The last time the school was re-accredited -- in 2000 -- the focus was entirely on curriculum content, she said.
Since then, the board has shifted to focusing on whether students are truly learning the material, which is where the need for thorough and accurate feedback comes in.
Engineering administrators said that the school did well aside from the problems obtaining good feedback.
For Engineering and Wharton sophomore Rohit Nagpal, his department's poor assessment of student learning is not something to worry about.
"The professors [in Engineering] are some of the best I've ever had," he said. "I don't know if I care that they're not measuring [student learning] that well."
