Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
From the Regional Faculty of the Universidad Tecnológica
a group of people is working on a project
for capacity development in water and environment
and their relationship with both the surroundings
and the training of engineers
It is in this context that we make this meeting to exchange some opinions that have to do with the project itself
with the way it has been developed and its relationship with the process and accreditation bodies
with which it is related the university activities in order to accredit the qualities with which higher education operates in Argentina
The project we are talking about, CapWEM, is, as was mentioned for the capacity development in water and environment issues and has six partners
is a project within the ALFA Programme of the European Commission where two European partners
Siegen University in Germany and in Portugal the partner of the Technology Institute
and we have partners in Latin America in Costa Rica, El Salvador, Chile, Paraguay, Brazil and us from Argentina
The project itself has different edges, some related to the engineering curricula,
and that's what concerns us and we are going to dedicate today
and others dedicated to the relationship with higher education and the environment
with disaster prevention, with technology transfer, etc..
As I said, particularly, now we are going to talk about our subproject dedicated to civil engineering curricula
Well, within the work package Reform and Modernization of curricula
we worked based on a comparison made
between the curricula of civil engineering career of the eight participating universities
and what was intended to do was
to compare the content specifically related to water and environment
and how these contents were addressed from the different subjects
What was done was to conduct a survey among the eight participants, were relieved data related to the extension of the careers
data specifically related to, as I said, these contents related to water and environment
and also data related to accreditation mechanisms used in each of the participating countries.
In this context, indeed, one of the things that is done, is to compare how they work in other places
but try to make proposals inward our universities
seeking to improve the way in which these issues are addressed
and improve the way that future engineers
will have capacities to develop this.
Now, once advanced the project and found several of the conclusions,
there is a particular issue that affects a lot in making decisions within the faculties:
the processes of accreditation that universities are submitted to in order to define minimum standards,
try to improve them but also give the society the opportunity to have an assurance of the quality with which universities operate;
and we have the opportunity today to have the presence of Dr. Luis Maria Fernandez,
who is vice president of CONEAU.
CONEAU in Argentina is the agency through which the university careers are accredited
and in particular our faculty, as the complete university and almost all engineering careers in Argentina I think,
have been in processes of accreditation more than one time, so that there are three, four or ten years of accrediting careers.
So with the presence of Dr. Fernandez in Bahia Blanca
we wanted to have his opinion, to add it to this project,
about this important institution of accreditations and its relationship with universities.
I mean, if it means advantages, disadvantages, how it is seen from the other side.
Yes, that you are saying is an essential topic right now, I think,
because when the processes of evaluation and accreditation
began in Argentina, not so long compared to other countries
at that time the aim was to have appropriate standards
and begin the accreditation.
To this joined the Ministry of Education funding improvement projects based on the evaluation and accreditation processes,
which brought, as you know, a significant improvement in the quality of the careers.
The UTN is an example that I set at every opportunity I have, mathematical example that shows the importance of accreditation.
In the first process of accreditation of engineering careers UTN had many problems with many careers to accredit them.
Very few accredited for six years except for the strongest regional faculties.
Passed that stage, the second accreditation came six years later and the results were exactly the opposite:
most of them accredited for six years.
I mean, it is an important quantitative indicator that marks that the accreditation serves.
But your question is not only related to your area, it is a topic concerning to all the areas of engineering, why?
Because civil engineering is not the civil engineering of 20 or 30 years ago,
they have been introduced in the middle many things, the environment, etc.
And this will somehow affect on the way of qualifying the careers.
That is, it is true what you say, the accreditation process had the advantage of the example of UTN I explained before,
but it had the disadvantage that all universities try to be within a certain scheme and then everything is very structured
and there is little chance of adding, little chance of enlarge, little possibility of changing, why?
Because once the career got the accreditation, it tries to maintain that.
That's where I think universities should face and, in this particular case of engineering the CONFEDI,
a process of changing standards tending to be more flexible in order to be able to introduce other things.
In this case that you are considering, the environment, the water, are issues that somehow have to enter the curricula.
Now, suppose that this would work, how many things have to be incorporated into engineering careers?
With the amount of available knowledge plus all this we are talking about, our careers that now last 7 years would pass to take 27,
so we have to seek a way out.
I think several themes appear in that you are mentioning.
One is how to include other issues and what issues?
Because we are talking about water and environment, and other people will talk about legal issues and other will talk about economic issues...
Actually, in the project one of the conclusions was just that the only way we see to attack and see these problems
is to use the word university itself as universality of knowledge
and create spaces where all these activities are developed for the students to take contact with them.
Activities that are available in optional ways in some cases and as mandatory in other cases.
But you mentioned the issue of the duration of the careers and for us, working on this,
it is a bit of a concern because we see that there is a clear difference between the European and the Latin American model
in the way of developing the university career,
the way the contents are developed, but also we see clearly a Ministry of Education and a policy
that seeks to have more engineers on the street faster
because of the professional necessity,
and at the same time need to introduce more contents.
How do they look from the accreditation bodies the intentions to reduce
the number of years without affecting the quality of the graduate?
This is an issue that has not yet been sufficiently discussed, at least in CONEAU.
I mean, maybe we are still integrated into this rigid system that is Universities, Ministry, SPU, CONEAU, CONICET.
I think we have to argue that standards cannot be so rigid.
The standards need to be more flexible, where then begins to have importance the evaluator.
That is, many people would like to put this mechanism of evaluation and accreditation in an Excel spreadsheet, sum at the end, how many?
150, is more than 140, ready ... I do not share that; I like the qualitative matter that makes the evaluator when he evaluates the career.
But I digress a little from what you aimed, the duration of careers and the amount of contents.
I think our system has no solution, we will keep adding and adding contents and then careers will be so long.
Already today we have overlapping issues, repeated subjects, recurring themes in two or three subjects.
It must be given flexibility for each university to incorporate the electives issues in their careers, according to their teachers.
The accreditation system aims strongly to standardize, then all careers of civil engineering in all faculties should all be equal and it is not the objective...
The regional issues and the development of the training of their teachers will be determinant.
We see it in the Universidad del Sur, your UTN, each one has its teachers and then are oriented to one side or to the other.
At some time I looked the European system, changes in Bologna and others, saying what are they doing?
But normally the same thing always happens: they know what they are doing.
Why do they put up the Bologna process?
Because they require that the student obtain training in a period of time, but the continuing education is inevitable.
I mean, to expect what happened when we graduated, that we took our title and went to work,
and for 20 years we did not open a book, is impossible today.
Then the solution is continuous education.
I mean, nowadays to train an engineer is to train a person in the basic contents, and train him to continue studying.
To train for training
To keep studying permanently.
So university or responsible bodies, because sometimes other scientific societies intervene,
will take care of incorporating the necessary capabilities to the person depending on the function he/she is exercising.
I think that training, and this applies to engineering as for any profession, in the modern world of technology is impossible,
so I do not dislike the idea of Bologna.
I do not say to apply it exactly in the same way,
but I agree with the concept of training a qualified person with all the basic concepts and then continue studying as it is suggested.
I think it is an alternative that may allow us to overcome what you are saying,
how we introduce our particular topics in an engineering career?
From this that you are mentioning arise at least two issues.
Bologna has the particularity to be covering a number of countries
and probably you could tell us how currently are occurring issues that deal with Mercosur, Brazil,
but something we were saying recently and I do not know if it is promoted from the accreditation like the standards because it is very difficult to do,
working on this kind of project is clear for us, quite clearly:
the only thing that one have to do with more emphasis to make it work
is that people have enough opening mind to interact with other disciplines.
I mean common languages, respect for the other discipline, generation of interdisciplinary groups.
It would solve the problem of not giving universal training,
and really know that to work, in some cases the person will have to appeal to other disciplines.
Is this seen in the accreditation? Does it appears as an emerging or not yet?
No, but it is a problem we have in the whole system.
I was lucky to be teaching at the Universidad del Sur and just shortly after I had assumed the institutional evaluation was completed.
I remember that evaluators came, members of CONEAU, and at the final meeting, discussing, they told us something I will not forget:
you have a departmental system, which is very good, it would be optimum for the interaction,
but looking at the Ministry of Science and Technology, you fund - at that time were 200 projects per year-,
and only one involves more than one academic unit.
This is our reality.
And it has not changed yet.
And it has not changed much. But recently when we talked about things that are added to the civil engineering, you mentioned the economy.
Sure, but if I pretend that an engineer has to know about the relationship of the economy to civil engineering and about laws, etc...
it is impossible unless I integrate it with the other discipline.
And in Argentina we are quite far, at least in careers related with professions, with technologies and others.
As was supposed any of these topics enables to pull a thread and keep an endless conversation.
For example you mentioned the issue of accreditation and regionalization,
and the theme that if we make all careers equal, returning to the particular topics water and environment,
we lose the possibility of training people who have to do with our region.
It is not the same to work in the Paraguayan Chaco, in Bahia Blanca in a semiarid area or in Rio Turbio.
Actually these processes of accreditation are also weakening the possibility of regionalizing.
Would exist a solution for this?
It would be solvable if we reach a degree of flexibility that is not easy at universities;
because of something universities have thousands of years.
I think it's because they have been so structured as conservative.
There's a concept that I like to highlight:
in an engineer´s process of formation, of 4 or 5 years, or any professional, with the amount of knowledge,
you cannot go beyond that giving basic training and training to continue studying.
So I think masteries, specializations, and that kind of things are the exit for a civil engineer to be dedicated to the issues you are talking about,
water and environment, or to be dedicated to legal issues in the construction for example.
That is, to train the person with all the contents together, as it was before, it is over.
I think it is necessary a degree of flexibility, and the teachers and the university must have this flexibility, so that the standards are flexible too.
I understand we have taken almost 15 years into evaluation and accreditation processes, it is not so long.
And when one begins, usually we all try to put on a rigid schedule.
There's one issue left pending: globalization and neighbors.
This project for example,
has allowed us to continue this idea
that universities day by day have clearer:
the mobility of students, teachers´ mobility, to generate these spaces.
In this case due to a previous task of Mariana with people of Germany allowed this project to exist,
and it gives the faculty the opportunity to interact with people from outside, to be able to compare with others.
At the meeting held in Bahia Blanca recently, we had the opportunity for our teachers could talk to people and have results from other places.
Does the accreditation in regional issues complicate a bit more the issue when one look to Brazil?
Or sometimes make things easier because it allows us to introduce changes that we would resist more?
It is complicated. I'll explain why, from my point of view.
You emphasized Brazil, and it is logical.
From the point of view of the accreditation, the relationship with Brazil is asymptotic to zero.
And I have to get into political issues, but I have not alternative to explain it.
I think this is a product of the collapse of MERCOSUR.
And so these things that were a little accompanying are losing too.
CONEAU initiated a few years ago, long before I came to CONEAU, a program with the MERCOSUR countries called ARCUSUR,
it had as idea to accredit in a common way the careers in the different countries.
What does in a common way mean?
It means with the same standards and with the same groups of evaluators, which looked very cute ...
But very difficult,
because regarding to the standards the consequence is that as product of agreements, the standards are much lower than these we have in Argentina.
To maintain diplomatic issues standards decrease. So could it be a non-beneficial process?
Not completely beneficial. Maybe it could contribute a little more to the homogenization because the evaluators are the same.
It's a too cumbersome, too expensive process,
and to accredit all careers,
because if we are going to talk about engineering in Argentina
would be all engineering careers of the country,
I guess the number is too large.
The output for this situation we think and we have discussed with some,
lately primarily Mexico, and via CONFEDI, is the mutual recognition of accreditation bodies.
That is, we recognize the accrediting body of engineering in Mexico and they recognize CONEAU in Argentina,
after discussing common practices, standards and others.
That method might work because it would allow a certain degree of homogeneity
and would allow mobility of students and professionals, which you said before.
Then comes the problem of exercising these professions in each one of the countries. That's another situation to discuss.
That actually has to do with legal professional licenses.
To exercise as a civil engineer implies in the province of Buenos Aires certain characteristics.
That would be another thing to discuss.
We believe that the alternative is the mutual recognition of accreditation bodies, that's in some way what happens in Europe.
Well, they have an integration process that has nothing to do with our idea of MERCOSUR.
Our MERCOSUR has been disarming for different circumstances and they have a very strong system,
I mean, they apply Bologna and apply it at all countries.
Anyway it seems they are not so happy.
They are not so happy. I agree with that, and it is also true that when we talk about engineering, Bologna process does not apply so exactly ...
then you see that it is not the magic solution.
I believe that such a process could be the output to allow the careers to include many training courses
and have some degree of regional homogeneity at least.
What is your opinion regarding the weight of the standards
related to researching in the accreditation of engineering careers?
This is a discussion that has had quite, fundamentally when we talk about UTN,
because if I have an university where I demand, ask for the teachers, to be people who are in the industry,
qualified to work in the daily work and I ask them to do research,
I'm in trouble because they will not do anything right when I ask them for all that.
So this has been discussed enough.
And in the first stage of accreditation, the first cycle, generally the standards dedicated to research have been looked in a fairly light way.
Because it was thought that these are careers dedicated to train professionals,
and then it is unlikely to have research, so the first day we cannot ask for that.
But if we accept the concept that a good university in addition to train professionals
also has to have research on actual technological development in the world,
if we think so, it is not wrong to require researching in a gradual way.
The standards must be applied in a gradual manner, that is expressly established in the rules.
So I think what we should do today is put the stick here, within 6 years here ...
I mean, you have research groups, and that is another defect that we have, I do not speak of basic research,
because at the end do research only mathematical people, and the university shows that it has research,
yes, but is this research the one we are looking for in the area of engineering?
No
I'm not saying that it is not necessary but we are looking for more technology development, more transference.
Then the idea is, I think, we should be changing, and I insist, the research involves everything:
involves development, transfer,
and then, when I use that concept I can demand in a career which is eminently professional having people in the technological development,
for example, to ask for technological development in the researching area or in the area of electronics to the people is not a crazy thing,
on the contrary, I think it improves them.
I do not know if your question regarding research standards was pointed to this.
And I do not tell you what happens when we apply this in careers such as law, psychology...
All this process of evaluation and accreditation of undergraduate and graduate careers have as engine the university,
not only because the university contributes with the evaluators, which is the heart of evaluation,
but because to set the standards the Ministry use as a reference source the agencies´ deans,
I mean, the CONFEDI in engineering is just the meeting of all engineering deans of Argentina.
Anyway no one has put it as a rule. So universities have a very active participation in this.
And further, I think their position will define us to go or not to more accessible mechanisms, easier to handle.
I mean, universities have a lot to do in all this, are fundamental, and it is a fight we have from CONEAU to make many university teachers
understand that the standards are being set by the university.
Moreover, in my opinion, and this is a purely personal opinion, I think the agencies, professional associations, should have its participation.
People say no, the corporation...but they have to be there and opine, with the university, with the ministry. Why?
Because they are who know, and in the professional careers it is important, because they are who know, as I say, the street.
Thank you very much,
I think it has been a privilege for us to have this opportunity
and one more time,
very thankful for you to come to our regional faculty.
No, on the contrary,
happy for transmit a Little the experience
of evaluation and accreditation.