{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01637107776261937, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005457025920873124, 'mean_word_length': 6.019138755980861, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Professional accreditation toward outcome-driven curricula

In Australia, all professional engineering programs are subject to accreditation by the Institution of Engineers, Australia (IEAust). After a major review of engineering education by IEAust in 1996, new program assessment processes and guidelines were introduced. The revised guidelines had strong emphasis on the demonstration of outcome-driven curricula to inculcate generic attributes in graduates. This followed similar developments in the professional practice of several Washington Accord signatories. Examples of outcomes striven for by the "Ten IEAust Commandments", like its counterparts elsewhere are attributes varying from the ability to apply knowledge and to display in-depth confidence, to understanding of the social, cultural, global and environmental responsibilities of the professional engineer. The stated purposes of accreditation include a critical certification to governments, licensing bodies and the public of the competence of graduate engineers. IEAust accreditation constitutes an independent evaluation of the programs and the standing of the schools offering them in a national and international context. This paper discusses the philosophical and practical aspects of the accreditation process based on the authors' experiences with the most recent accreditation of the professional engineering programs in the School of Electrical and Information Engineering in July 2000.