Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Program Outcomes and Institutions Management Frameworks as Seen by EUR-ACE and by CTI: A Comparison of Criteria

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Engineering Education for a Smart Society (GEDC 2016, WEEF 2016)

Part of the book series: Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing ((AISC,volume 627))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

In Europe, the European Network for Accreditation of Engineering Education (ENAEE) has created in 2005 a specific frame concerning different levels of accreditation of engineering education: the EUR-ACE label. This frame is now extending to other continents such as Asia and Africa. The agencies authorized by ENAEE to deliver EUR-ACE label have, amongst other points, to prove that they assess that the HEIs that they are accrediting satisfy criteria concerning their management and the learning outcomes of their graduates. This paper presents the reasons why Commission des Titres d’Ingénieur (CTI) - which is the French accreditation agency for engineering education - knows when it evaluates an institution that the requirements of the two accreditation systems are coherent.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. ENAEE (2015). http://enaee.eu/eur-ace-system/eur-ace-framework-standards/standards-and-guidelines-for-accreditation-of-engineering-programmes/

  2. R et O, livre1 (2016). http://www.cti-commission.fr/IMG/pdf/cti-ro2016-livre1.pdf

  3. Best Practices for Engineering Accreditation, ENAEE (2015). http://enaee.eu/publications/best-practice-in-engineering-programme-accreditation/

  4. Bologna Working Group: A framework for qualifications in the EHEA, Copenhagen (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Find and compare Qualification Frameworks, 8 Novembre 2016. http://ec.europa.eu/ploteus/

  6. ESG (2015). WWW.enqa.eu

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Commission des titres d’Ingénieur, Paris, France

    Anne-Marie Jolly

Authors
  1. Anne-Marie Jolly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anne-Marie Jolly .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Carinthia University of Applied Sciences, Villach, Austria

    Michael E. Auer

  2. Korea University of Technology and Education, Cheonan, Chungcheongnam-do, Korea (Republic of)

    Kwang-Sun Kim

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this paper

Cite this paper

Jolly, AM. (2018). Program Outcomes and Institutions Management Frameworks as Seen by EUR-ACE and by CTI: A Comparison of Criteria. In: Auer, M., Kim, KS. (eds) Engineering Education for a Smart Society. GEDC WEEF 2016 2016. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol 627. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60937-9_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60937-9_10

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-60936-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-60937-9

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation