1. Background

Achieving formal accreditation for a computing program (e.g., computer science, information systems, information technology, or cybersecurity) represents an internationally recognized attestation that the program meets agreed upon measurable attributes as defined by a community of computing professionals. Typically, an external organization (supported by appropriate domain expertise) awards accreditation based on a process by which an educational program provides information to that external body that independently evaluates and validates the information, and then makes a public declaration about the qualifications and/or quality of the institution or program [2].

Accreditation of computing programs remains a voluntary function in the United States, although it is a mandatory government function in some countries.

We can trace the roots of accreditation in the United States as far back as the late nineteenth century when both regional and program specific accreditation agencies began to emerge. In the United States, regional agencies accredit entire institutions; school-specific agencies accredit colleges or schools; program-specific agencies accredit only specific programs. For example, the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) is a regional accreditation agency established in 1895 for accrediting entire institutions in the southern region of the United States; the American Medical Association (AMA) accredits entire medical schools within universities; and the American Psychological Association (APA) accredits only psychology programs.

Accreditation of computing programs remains a voluntary function in the United States, although it is a mandatory government function in some countries. For program specific accreditation, an accrediting agency that represents the profession and has authorization to conduct the evaluation certifies that a qualified program meets well defined criteria in specified categories. Furthermore, programs considered for accreditation undergo an in-depth peer-review process by qualified professionals who perform the evaluation on behalf of the accrediting agency.

2. Computing Accreditation in the United States

The process of computing accreditation began in the 1980s in the United States. Computer science programs that satisfied the computing criteria—as defined by the Computer Science Accreditation Commission (CSAC) of the Computing Sciences Accreditation Board (CSAB)—received computing accreditation status. Beginning around 2001, computing accreditation shifted from CSAC to ABET, and computing programs (both domestically and internationally) then could achieve accreditation status if they satisfied the criteria as defined by the Computing Accreditation Commission (CAC) of ABET. Several earlier papers [3,4,6] provide an overview of accreditation processes and related considerations.


Founded in 1932 as the Engineers' Council for Professional Development (ECPD), this agency was the engineering professional body dedicated to the education, accreditation, regulation, and professional development of engineering professionals and students in the United States. In 1980, ECPD became the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) to describe more accurately its emphasis on accreditation. Licensing boards in many states, professional engineering societies, and employers of engineers require, or at least strongly prefer, that engineers be graduates of programs accredited by ABET. In the case of baccalaureate engineering programs, the Engineering Accreditation Commission (EAC) of ABET is the specific commission within ABET that accredits such programs. The EAC itself is composed of representatives from thirty-five professional engineering member societies such as the IEEE, the American Institute of Chemical Engineers, the Society of Manufacturing Engineers, and the Society of Petroleum Engineers. It is these societies and their professional members that provide the domain-specific expertise; they conduct, on behalf of ABET, the actual program evaluations that lead to accreditation.

In the case of computing accreditation, in 1982 the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) and the Computer Society of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE CS) formed a joint task force to plan an accreditation process for the computing sciences. In 1984 the task force completed draft documents to create the Computing Sciences Accreditation Board (CSAB) and they appointed provisional representative directors to the CSAB corporation. CSAB's scope of responsibility addressed only post-secondary baccalaureate programs that prepare students for entry into the computing field. CSAB created the Computer Science Accreditation Commission (CSAC) specifically to accredit baccalaureate programs in computer science, much like EAC was doing at that time in behalf of ABET.

In the early 2000s, CSAB became one of the member societies of ABET, and CSAC evolved into the Computing Accreditation Commission (CAC) of ABET. The CAC became one of four commissions within ABET and had the responsibility of evaluating and accrediting programs in computer science, information systems, information technology, cybersecurity, and other computing-related programs. Table 1 provides details of ABET's operations as of 2017 October. Each year, more than 2,200 volunteers from 35 professional societies contribute to ABET's goal of assuring quality in computing, engineering, technology, and natural and applied science programs.


The CAC criteria address the fundamental capability of a program in computing to prepare students to become competent professionals. The accreditation criteria define a threshold of necessary achievement and avoid any means by which the public can compare or contrast two or more accredited programs. The computing criteria address eight principal categories relative to a program that include students, program educational objectives, student outcomes, continuous improvement, curriculum, faculty, facilities, and administrative support. Programs must satisfy ABET's "Accreditation Policy and Procedure Manual" in addition to the CAC computing criteria. Details regarding current criteria for computing programs appear on the ABET website [1].

The criteria for computer engineering and software engineering programs fall under the Engineering Accreditation Commission (EAC) of ABET. For computer engineering, CSAB is a cooperating society, which means it assists IEEE (the lead society) with the criteria for computer engineering programs. For software engineering, CSAB is the lead society. This means that although the EAC conducts formal accreditation visits for these programs, CSAB develops the criteria for software engineering programs.


As with all accrediting agencies, once an institution commits to seek accreditation or renewal of its current accreditation status, the first major task is the creation of a self study report. The institution, following a format provided by ABET, carries out the preparation of the report, which represents a comprehensive collection of information that directly or indirectly affects the program. The institution documents the results of the self study findings in the form of narrative responses to a questionnaire, which include overall institutional information such as administrative structure, student enrollment and completion data, admissions and graduation requirements as well as continuous improvement. Self-study details also cover program specific information such as program objectives, each faculty member's vitae, curriculum structure, laboratory facilities, and student advising and development. Supplemental information consists of a random selection of student transcripts, the institutional catalog, and any other information the institution may consider appropriate.

The CAC visit team consists of a team chair as well as one or two program evaluators for each computing program. The respective commissions select the team chair; the lead society (e.g., CSAB) selects the program evaluators. Procedures are in place to avoid potential conflicts of interest. Once the institution approves a team, each member of the visiting team receives a copy of the self-study report as well as sample transcripts of graduates. Programs display curriculum and assessment exhibits during the actual accreditation visit; these exhibits are a crucial part of the accreditation process and important for review by the visiting team.


The accreditation process takes about two years to complete, assuming adequate preparations are in place. These preparations include assessing student outcomes, usually over two assessment cycles. For new programs, ABET conducts a readiness review to ascertain whether a program is sufficiently prepared to achieve accreditation. Institutions apply for accreditation early in a calendar year after clearing the readiness process and before the year in which it seeks to receive official recognition. Formal visits to institutions usually take place during the months of September through December each year; soon after that, the visiting team makes its initial report to ABET. A few months after the visit, the institution receives a preliminary report from ABET to which it can make a formal response. In July of the following year, members of the CAC meet to decide which programs to accredit. In August, ABET officially notifies institutions of its decision and delivers a final report to them. After receiving official notification, institutions may publicly announce the accredited status of their program, but not the length of that accreditation.

3. Accreditation: Is it Really Worth the Effort?

While program accreditation can certainly be a viewed as a constructive opportunity to do a self-examination of each of the computing programs at one's institution, the process involved is time intensive and requires an institution to expend significant effort in the preparation for the review. Is it worth the time and effort? On one hand, some people argue that accreditation provides a program and an institution the opportunity to gain valuable periodic evaluation according to international norms from an impartial external review team of peer professionals. On the other hand, other people believe that program accreditation is not in harmony with the strategic goals and philosophy of their programs and forces faculty members, whose time is limited, to undergo bureaucratic exercises for the purpose of meeting "someone else's" (i.e., ABET) requirements. We now discuss some rationale comparing and contrasting these two points of view.


The accreditation process allows departments, schools, and institutions to think in a deliberate manner about ways in which a computing program delivers on a promise to students concerning what they learn in comparison to global standards as defined by computing professionals (via the ACM and IEEE-CS). The accreditation process provides an opportunity to develop insight regarding what students learn and whether students achieve well-defined expectations by the time of graduation.


The accreditation process brings into question the purpose or objectives of the program and whether its goals conform to the needs of its constituents. Ask yourself—Does your computing program articulate clear objectives that describe what graduates should be able to do? Do you have articulated student outcomes designed to prepare those students to achieve the program objectives? Do your students actually achieve those outcomes?

The process of accreditation requires programs to consider benchmarks or baselines for achievement of student outcomes and characteristics of the curriculum. Specifically, what are the minimal proficiencies every student should meet by the time of graduation? Hence, accreditation provides professional credentials that affirm what a student has learned. This "guarantee" manifests itself in several other areas such as administrative support, laboratory and library facilities, faculty expertise, and curriculum standards. In effect, accreditation is a form of quality assurance that students, their parents or guardians, their potential employers, and the public expect from those who graduate from an accredited computing program.


Accreditation brings a public "seal of approval" to a computing program that achieves that designation. This recognition may bring to the program certain benefits. One such benefit is marketing to prospective students. Tuition at universities is often high and keeps increasing. And given a decision about "what do I get for my money," students may be more inclined to attend institutions that have accredited computing programs because accreditation is one means to ensure that program quality conforms to standards accepted worldwide by qualified professionals.

While program accreditation can certainly be a viewed as a constructive opportunity to do a self-examination of each of the computing programs at one's institution, the process involved is time intensive and requires an institution to expend significant effort in the preparation for the review. Is it worth the time and effort?

Another benefit of accreditation is a promise to employers that graduates have attained specific student outcomes at an expected level of capability. Universities often publish that a program meets accreditation standards on public documents and websites. Thus, in effect, accreditation can be viewed as a good faith indication that graduates have achieved agreed upon expectations and, through a process of continuous improvement and periodic reviews, that the program has maintained those standards. Because of this quality assurance in a public forum, accreditation of computing programs may provide a public relations mechanism that institutions should consider.


We now provide some perspectives (e.g., from students, faculty, administration, employers, the public, and international quality assurance) on accreditation that can be seen as important with positive impacts. The following scenarios may be helpful to understand why accreditation is important and constructive for people and institutions.

Parental Enquiry: A potential student and her/his parents inquire about your program. They ask why your program is not accredited. What would be your response?

This is a common question at "open house" sessions. This question is important because students often shop for quality computing programs, and they are seeking some way of determining what "quality" means and how you know it when you see it. Putting the accreditation stamp of approval on a program is generally enough to convince both parents and students that the program is a quality one.

Regional Accreditation: You are working on regional accreditation and you must develop student outcomes for your information systems program. You also must assess these outcomes to determine whether students achieved them. But you really have no idea what to do to address those criteria.

Accreditation criteria for computing programs specifies the student outcomes needed for different programs. These criteria also specify aspects of the assessment process for continuous improvement. If your program was accredited, you would already have the learning outcomes defined, and you would already have assessed them. Regional accreditation agencies routinely accept these forms of discipline specific continuous improvement processes on assessment, and your university can use this accreditation process as a model for reaffirming regional accreditation.

Recruitment of Graduates: Industries in your region are recruiting students upon graduation. Your computing program does not have accreditation status. Why should they recruit from your institution versus another one that is accredited?

Industrial employers have limited budgets for recruitment, and so they naturally use their budgets to recruit from what they consider to be the top programs. But if your program isn't well-known to them as a top program, then you will need some other reason to attract their attention. Accreditation of your program may be just enough to give the recruiter confidence in your "product," because they have an assurance of quality based upon external evaluators.

Facilities Enhancement: You have been unsuccessful in arguing within your own institution for better support for laboratory equipment. Your administration is unsure of the necessity, and they routinely respond by saying "you have no independent corroboration of the need for better equipment—it's just you all saying so."

You need an independent, external group of disciplinary experts to provide their objective assessment of your situation. While accreditation would not guarantee that your position would be supported, it would certainly carry weight with your leadership. Accreditation criteria often specify the need for modern equipment so students are able to achieve the learning outcomes for the program. Demonstrating what such internationally accepted "standards" look like via the accreditation criteria can provide you with a more objective assessment of your situation. Otherwise, there might not be a sufficiently compelling reason for your administration to make a change.

Faculty Recruitment: You are attempting to recruit the best faculty members possible, and you would like evidence that your program is tracking upward in quality to enhance your reputation.

Faculty candidates are savvy about institutions and their programs, and in today's market, these candidates have choices and will gravitate toward quality programs. Because quality is the hallmark of accredited programs, having accredited status could be a positive signal for faculty candidates.

Program Attrition: A parent asks about your program and wants to see proof of the percent of students who successfully complete it as a way to compare it to other programs that have accreditation status in the region.

Accreditation self-study reports require that enrollment and graduation data be current and accurate over a period of at least five years, and that such data be posted publicly. So, the answer would be as simple as directing the parent to your website by saying "All accredited programs post this information routinely, so compare all you like!"

Other Programs: Your administration would like to know how your program compares against programs that are considered "the standard bearer in the discipline."

With so many approaches to and emphases in computing, what exactly is a "standard bearer" anyway? You need not try to deal with that if you simply rely on accreditation criteria as your measure. Since programs that have earned accredited status are listed publicly, and if your program is also accredited, then you can simply say "our program meets the same standards, the same criteria, as these programs."

Public Relations: You are looking for a way to showcase your program to your local industries, your students, and your university. How can you do this in a meaningful way without being overly aggressive?

On the days of the accreditation visit, invite industry representatives and university administrators to review the exhibit room containing curricular displays, and have them engage with the visit team to exchange thoughts on the strengths of the program. The interactions with the visit team and the first hand review of your work in the display room are sure to be a boon for your public relations.


In some instances, the central issue facing institutions classified as undergraduate liberal arts institutions is a philosophical one. Such institutions often maintain that no more than 40% (or about 48 credits) of the total course work should be focused on the major, with the balance of the credits being assigned to their liberal arts mission. This philosophy of undergraduate education can and does easily coexist with the ABET criteria. For example, the ABET computing requirements in no case exceed 40 credits, allowing the remaining 80 credits for non-computing content. That is, the computing component is only 33.3% of the degree program. With respect to the mathematics and science requirements, the newest ABET criteria requires an additional 21 credits, but the specific math and science requirements are largely left to the institutional/program to determine, and many liberal arts colleges already require some form of math and science in the liberal arts core anyway. This allows 59 of the 120 total credits for non-technical, non-mathematics, non-science liberal arts study. Thus, for many liberal arts colleges, the ABET criteria is in complete harmony with the philosophical tenets of their liberal arts education.


For some faculty members and administrators, the accreditation process can be a daunting experience, both in terms of the time devoted to the creation of the self-study, and the cost of the evaluation itself. Some may even conclude that the result is not worth the effort and cost involved, or that accreditation may even be contrary to the philosophy of the program or institution.


Perhaps the biggest obstacle to pursuing accreditation is faculty (and administrative) attitude. In some cases, the belief or perception exists that accreditation interferes with academic freedom and the ability of a program to follow its own destiny, or to "do what it wants." Although they resent regional/institutional accreditation, academic leaders acquiesce because the consequences of not doing so are too great: the loss of student assistance and/or program recognition.

In the minds of some computing faculty members, the benefits of program accreditation are not worth the effort. Why should they go through the hassle of worrying about defining program objectives, assessing student learning outcomes, ensuring that curricular content meets agreed upon disciplinary guidelines, or that faculty colleagues have sufficient credentials and expertise to contribute to the program? They would rather spend the time assisting students, doing research, and publishing papers rather than become involved with the accreditation process that demands this. Furthermore, the time and work devoted to the process has no personal benefit because most institutions provide little or no recognition to those who expend the effort to pursue accreditation.


As a counterpoint to the earlier discussion regarding the "harmony" of the ABET criteria with the missions of some liberal arts institutions, there are admittedly some undergraduate liberal arts institutions that argue that ABET accreditation criteria are too inflexible to be applied to their computing program(s). That is, the specific ABET computing curricular criteria are too specific and too numerous to be satisfied by a traditional undergraduate liberal arts computing program. Of course, this viewpoint depends on the exact requirements of the specific computing program. The ABET computing criteria are largely patterned after existing computing guidelines, which were developed over many years by a community of computing professionals from the ACM, IEEE Computer Society, and others. Additionally, it is widely acknowledged that those curricular guidelines are—as a whole—too extensive to be satisfied by any single program. One needs to choose the "focus" of a program and then select a subset of the guidelines that best fit the mission. If that choice does not align with the ABET criteria, then yes, accreditation might be "a bridge too far." Notwithstanding, that situation is not true for every liberal arts program, since many liberal arts institutions have already embraced ABET accreditation.

• 3.2.3 COST

Many programs incur personnel related costs in preparing for accreditation, e.g., paying consultants if needed, and hosting the visiting team. If a program is pursuing accreditation for the first time, the time commitment could be very high. For those new to the process, there is a steep learning curve, and they are not likely to go through the process very efficiently. Even if a program is not new to accreditation, there is an ongoing time commitment, especially if a program had shortcomings from a previous visit. Additionally, there is also a fee associated with maintaining accreditation. So, accreditation is not free. Institutional and faculty commitment are necessary in both time and monetary cost.

For some faculty members and administrators, the accreditation process can be a daunting experience, both in terms of the time devoted to the creation of the self-study, and the cost of the evaluation itself. Some may even conclude that the result is not worth the effort and cost involved ...


Many programs prioritize teaching and research activities much higher than accreditation activities. They may not even formally recognize the faculty time devoted to accreditation. Because institutions reward accomplishments in research and teaching, faculty members are much less inclined to devote much time to accreditation, particularly if the time is not part of their annual evaluation or contained within promotion and tenure guidelines. Because of this, it is all too common for a small subset of faculty—perhaps even just one person—to be responsible for the self-study preparation, thereby creating significant overloads for only a few individuals. But accreditation is a team sport, and it requires some level of participation from all faculty members.

• 3.2.5 OVERHEAD

Programs with new and primarily junior faculty members will find it necessary to spend much time educating them on the accreditation process and its requirements. Additionally, when properly done, continuous improvement may lead to curriculum and pedagogical adjustments which also results in time being spent on improvement tasks. In short, there is considerable work associated with data collection, data analysis, evaluation, decision making, and implementation that faculty members typically incur in doing the accreditation process.


Currently, the computing profession does not require licensure for practitioners as is the case with many professions. When the economy thrives and jobs are abundant, some businesses may hire skilled individuals even without appropriate education or degrees, let alone being graduates from accredited programs. That is, accreditation is a non-issue when hiring in such circumstances. Programs with high placement rates may not see the need for accreditation at those times. When jobs are not abundant, even then businesses may not understand the purpose or meaning of accreditation. So, engaging in accreditation processes may not be important to industry or academia.


We have illustrated some pros and cons on the attributes of program accreditation. We now present some perspectives based on our experience. For example, some may ask, "Why would we want to have some other group telling us what to do, and thereby diverting my precious time and our precious money to this cause?" While a valid and common question, we believe that it is important to recognize that leaders in computing communities—experienced educators and industry practitioners who represent ACM and IEEE—developed the accreditation criteria. These leaders are not "some other group"—they are computing colleagues who have reached consensus on what makes for a quality computing program. Why would someone in the field decide that those experts offer nothing of value? Perhaps what is really meant by those who react this way is that the expectation of continuous improvement is hard work. On that point, we agree! It is hard work that it is worth the effort.

We do sympathize with objections connected to cost, to managing competing priorities, and to workload overhead in preparing a self-study. With a focus on program quality improvement, there is always some price to pay. However, after engaging in an initial accreditation process, one finds that "lessons learned" and increased efficiency quickly mitigates the initial burden. Veteran programs generally have three-year assessment cycles for continuous improvement rather than semester or one-year cycles. They also take advantage of doing the assessment process through proper sampling rather than collecting population data. In effect, when done well, the assessment and accreditation processes become a seamless part of a faculty member's normal work.

4. Further Perspectives

We now provide some additional perspectives on accreditation. These points of view include industry, international treaties, and global recognition.

An important sign of industry's interest in accreditation is that approximately one-third of ABET's program evaluators come from industry. Accrediting agencies attempt to ensure that a visiting team has at least one member from industry or government.


Industry tends to view accreditation favorably. The salient reason for this is recruiting. Major industry has greater confidence in hiring graduates from institutions that have accredited programs. This is particularly useful to employers because it reduces recruiting costs, and it is good for the graduate who knows that the prospects for employment are greater. It is also better for the profession because it brings quality to the industry. Industry supports accreditation because of its need for well-educated professionals in the computing field. By focusing recruiting efforts on graduates of universities whose programs are high in quality, industrial organizations can have greater confidence in the skills and education of their new employees. Recruiters know that these graduates have undergone a program of study that meets a norm that satisfies generally accepted standards in the profession.

An important sign of industry's interest in accreditation is that approximately one-third of ABET's program evaluators come from industry. Accrediting agencies attempt to ensure that a visiting team has at least one member from industry or government. Industry representatives also serve as team chairs and on the boards and committees of the accreditation organizations. Despite their immediate need for better employees, many industrial representatives serve in the accreditation process because they believe it is better for the profession, which ultimately brings quality to the computing industry. Industry is particularly pleased that the accreditation criteria call for strong backgrounds in mathematics, science, writing, speaking, and teamwork. Industry representatives are less concerned about internal faculty matters and are more inclined to encourage developmental human skills as well as technical skills. All in all, industry views accreditation and its criteria as a close match to its own models of recruitment and development.


As already mentioned, in the United States computing program accreditation is a voluntary act by an institution to have an external agency of qualified professionals review a program of study. Canada, for example, has an accreditation mechanism like ABET. The Canadian Information Processing Society (CIPS) oversees the accreditation of all computing programs in the country. CIPS reviews and accredits both two-year and four-year degree programs. While accreditation is voluntary, it is well known in Canada that if a program does not receive accreditation status, it most likely will cease to exist.

In Mexico, institutions register all computing programs with the national government. The Mexican government provides the official authorization to allow these programs to function. While no formal voluntary accreditation process currently exists in Mexico, there is a strong movement among computing and engineering educators to create an accrediting agency whose criteria will closely resemble that of ABET.

Similar activities occur in other countries. In almost every country, local or national governments require computing programs to satisfy certain minimum requirements. In these cases, authorization to operate a program is a mandatory compliance rather than a voluntary act of accreditation. Despite the variety of possible approaches to achieve quality assurance in academic programs, we find that there are remarkable similarities in the way countries approach this goal.


Significant interest exists to expand international cooperation and the coordination of accreditation activities. This is particularly apparent in areas where labor forces have mobility across national boundaries. One major step toward international cooperation surrounding accreditation is the 1989 Washington Accord that provides mutual recognition of equivalent programs leading to a baccalaureate engineering degree [7].

In computing, international cooperation surrounding accreditation is the 2008 Seoul Accord that provides mutual recognition of equivalent programs leading to a baccalaureate computing degree [5]. Signatories to this accord are professional societies from Australia, Canada, Chinese Taipei, Hong Kong China, Japan, Korea, the United Kingdom and the United States. Provisional signatories include Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand and Philippines. Being part of accreditation can open doors to computing graduates who seek employment beyond their national borders.

5. Conclusion

So, why pursue program accreditation? Despite some challenges at the department level for first-time applicants, for many programs, the benefits of accreditation outweigh the challenges. For students, program accreditation provides them with the assurance that they have met standards for entry into the profession. For departments, schools, and universities, accreditation enhances their reputation and can become a significant attractor for student and faculty recruitment. For industry and government, computing accreditation ensures that students will graduate with a baseline level of competence when they enter the computing field. Furthermore, the global scope of ABET program accreditation is rather impressive, as shown in Figure 1.


1. ACM Awards; http://awards.acm.org/grades-of-ABET Criteria; http://www.abet.org/accreditation/accreditation-criteria/. Accessed 2018 Jan 14.

2. El-Chaws, E. (2001) Accreditation in the USA: origins, developments and future prospects. International Institute for Educational Planning, UNESCO; http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001292/129295e.pdf. Accessed 2018 January 14.

3. Engel, G., Impagliazzo, J. LaMalva, P. A brief history of the computing sciences accreditation board (CSAB) promoting quality education in the computing fields. ACM Inroads, 1, 2 (2010), 6.

4. Impagliazzo, J. et al. Accreditation in the Computing Profession, Proceedings of the 1997 Conference on Systemics, Cybernetics, and Informatics, SCI'97. Caracas, Venezuela.

5. Seoul Accord; https://www.seoulaccord.org/. Accessed 2018 Jan 14.

6. Walker, H. Getting Started with a Program Review. ACM Inroads, 9, 2, (2018), 26–28.

7. Washington Accord; http://www.ieagreements.org/accords/washington/. Accessed 2018 Jan 14.


Andrew Phillips
Academic dean and provost as well as professor of computer science
United States Naval Academy
589 McNair Road
Annapolis, MD 21402-5000
[email protected]

Kenneth Martin
Professor of computing as well as founding director of the Division of Computer and Information Sciences
University of North Florida
School of Computing
1 UNF Drive
Jacksonville, Florida 32224
[email protected]

John Impagliazzo
Professor emeritus of computer science
Hofstra University
Department of Computer Science
Hempstead, New York 11549-1000
[email protected]


F1Figure 1. Global scope of ABET accreditation as of 2017 October.


T1Table 1. ABET Accreditation Statistics as of 2017 October 1

Copyright held by authors.

The Digital Library is published by the Association for Computing Machinery. Copyright © 2019 ACM, Inc.

Contents available in PDF
View Full Citation and Bibliometrics in the ACM DL.


There are no comments at this time.


To comment you must create or log in with your ACM account.