To the Editor:

The article on the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology's accreditation of programs in the School of Engineering and Applied Science published on the front page of the DP ("5 SEAS depts called deficient," DP, 1/27/06), suffered from egregious errors and omissions. First and foremost, ABET was effusive about our faculty, students, quality of courses, advising and laboratory facilities. They were all found to be superb!

Our colleagues and we are ecstatic about it. This is hardly surprising given the exponential growth of the school in recent years, the recruitment of many star faculty and new and planned facilities. None of this was missed by ABET and it is very sad, to say the least, that it was so patently missed by the DP.

The school has a sterling reputation and attracts absolutely top students who are offered a cutting-edge education in all areas of technology. Employers are eager to hire our graduates; our Engineering Career Day has become a major annual event and brings to campus a veritable who-is-who of corporations that employ engineers.

Graduate schools compete aggressively for our students.

ABET's engineering accreditation process consists of an elaborate set of checklists, and some evaluators complained that we were not really following them in our reporting. The so-called "deficiencies" referred to by the DP were, indeed, deficiencies in data collection.

ABET asked us to better document that we have a process in place to survey our students, alumni and their employers to guide future curricular improvements. Ironically, each of the programs under review has such data available, which are being organized to be presented in the format expected by ABET.

Our programs have always been and continue to be fully accredited and will keep empowering our graduates for the best careers anywhere.

Eduardo Glandt

The author is the dean of the School of Engineering and Appied Sciences