by Knud E. Hermansen, P.L.S., P.E., Ph.D., Esq.

A much less effective manner of assuring relevant and practical education of the surveying graduate is through ABET program accreditation. By not fully lauding and embracing this avenue, I do not wish to discourage a program from seeking and obtaining accreditation or disparage ABET accreditation. The program content guidance available under common disciplines listed within ABET looks at a macro view of the surveying studies rather than focus on a micro view of professional needs. As an aside, I am not going to argue or encourage ABET take on a micro view by discipline.

Rather, I wish to make a point that ABET accreditation does not assure the program contents of an ABET accredited program are necessarily offering a relevant and practical education sought by the typical employer within the profession. The criteria that ABET accredited programs undergo continuous improvement and periodic assessment, often with the aid of an advisory committee, can help considerably with relevant and current knowledge if the assessment is taken seriously and aid sought from the profession through advisory committee members. I hope to write more about the benefits and limitations of ABET accreditation in another article.

Having given my opinion, I now offer advice by suggesting that yearly evaluation of program courses and course content be done by a committee composed of members of the profession. The committee should take on the role of friendly guidance – much like the bride’s mother for her daughter’s wedding. Then again, I may have used the wrong example given stories I have heard about the weddings of others where mothers went way beyond friendly guidance. I shall refine my parallel by adding so long as the bride’s mother is not allowed to take over the planning of the wedding itself.

Let me give some advice in detail. I think a committee is best composed of at least one active member of the state surveying profession that is supporting the program such as the immediate past president of the state society. If the surveying program is a regional program, a member from each state should be sought. Another member should be a current licensed member of the state surveyor licensing board.

All other members of the advisory committee should be employers or likely employers of the graduates from the program. Large multi-disciplinary firms and small firms should be well represented. Public and private sector employers should be represented as well. Donors or potential donors to  the program should be welcomed as members. Someone that is willing to back their advice with donations are to be actively sought. For example, including a member that is an equipment supplier that generously donates up-to-date equipment to the program would be wise.

Some may fault the perception I have just ‘painted’ that membership on the committee can be bought. I would wink and nod while countering with a Jewish saying that: “Life’s not as good with money as it is bad without it.” Let me state the intention of this Jewish saying in other terms, “A program that brings money to the university is less likely to be eliminated than a program that costs the university money.”