Two short phrases do a great deal of work in an ABET self-study: program educational objectives and student outcomes. They sit in neighboring criteria, they are often drafted in the same faculty meeting, and they are easy to blur together. ABET's criteria treat them as different things with different time horizons, different audiences and different review requirements. This guide sets out the distinction as ABET's engineering criteria for the 2026-27 cycle define it.

Credential Review is an independent publication. It reports on ABET's criteria and does not speak for ABET.

Two definitions, two time horizons

ABET defines program educational objectives as broad statements of what graduates are expected to attain within a few years after graduation, based on the needs of the program's constituencies. Student outcomes are statements of what students are expected to know and be able to do by the time they graduate: the knowledge, skills and behaviors they acquire as they move through the program.

The cleanest test is the date each statement points at. A student outcome describes a graduate on commencement day. An objective describes the same person several years into a career, and it is written in terms of what they do in the profession, not what they could demonstrate in a course.

What Criterion 2 asks for

Criterion 2 of the general criteria covers objectives and has three requirements. The program must publish its objectives. The objectives must be consistent with the institution's mission and with the needs of the program's constituencies. And the program must have a documented, systematically used and effective process for reviewing the objectives periodically, with every constituency the program has identified taking part.

Constituencies are a defined term too. ABET describes them as groups, including groups outside the institution, that the program identifies as having a common interest in it and that can give meaningful input on its objectives. In practice programs typically name groups such as employers, alumni, students, faculty and an industry advisory board, but the criteria leave the choice to the program. What the criteria require is that the groups named are actually involved in the review.

What Criterion 3 asks for

Criterion 3 covers student outcomes. For engineering programs it lists seven outcomes every graduate must attain, from solving complex engineering problems through communication, ethics, teamwork, experimentation and the acquisition of new knowledge. A program may add outcomes of its own. The outcomes are meant to prepare graduates to reach the objectives, so the two criteria are linked: the objectives say where graduates are headed, and the outcomes describe what the program equips them with before they leave.

Where measurement comes in

The two criteria differ most in what has to be measured. Criterion 4, on continuous improvement, is written around student outcomes. Under ABET's definitions, assessment is the set of processes that identify, collect and prepare data to evaluate whether student outcomes are attained, and evaluation is the interpretation of that data to judge the extent of attainment and to drive decisions about improving the program. That is the cycle a review team examines in detail during a visit.

Criterion 2, by contrast, centers on the objectives being published, being consistent with mission and constituency needs, and being reviewed through a documented process with constituency involvement. A self-study should therefore describe the objectives review as a process, with who took part, when, what they considered and what changed, and describe outcome attainment as data, with the measures, the results and the actions that followed.

Common drafting problems

  • Objectives written as outcomes. A statement such as graduates will be able to apply thermodynamics is an outcome. An objective would describe professional activity a few years out, such as practicing in a field, advancing in responsibility or pursuing further study.
  • A review process that exists only on paper. The criterion asks for a process that is documented and systematically used. Minutes, survey records or advisory board notes showing the review actually happened are what demonstrate that.
  • Constituencies named but not consulted. If a program lists a group as a constituency, the criterion expects that group to take part in the review.
  • Objectives that drift from the institution's mission. Consistency with mission is part of the requirement, so a mission statement revision on campus is a reason to look at the objectives again.

Before the next review

Read the published objectives and ask whether each describes graduates a few years after commencement. Confirm the list of constituencies matches the groups who actually took part in the last review, and gather the record of that review. Then check that the outcomes assessment cycle under Criterion 4 is documented separately, with its own data. The current cycle's criteria document is the reference, since definitions and wording can change from one cycle to the next.

Sources