{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022556390977443608, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.368421052631579, '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}}
'Accreditation' of engineering studies: Formal systems versus individual responsibility

The globalization of the world's economy (and its labour market) reveals a growing need for graduate mobility. In this free global market, educational institutions are under increased pressure to show their intrinsic value, to define and guarantee their quality and to show continually their relevance to their communities and national governments (often the main financial stakeholder). Accreditation of degrees (and institutions) by a recognized international authority (or by an international network of recognized national authorities) is often quoted as the solution to address the needs of mobility and quality assurance. I believe that the process of accreditation is not the fundamental answer to these needs. Accreditation in education can be a stabilizing factor in a small-scale economical system, but it fails on a large (global) scale. The reason for this is that any accreditation scheme judges quality in an arbitrary way. The key to opening up free mobility of competencies and to leveraging quality education is to develop a system to measure objectively an individual's competence. A system that makes the abstract notion of 'competence' tangible to anyone, but that leaves the judgement open to the ones who need to judge…