Misleading story

To the Editor:

I was shocked on Friday morning when a fellow Engineering student said, "I may have to transfer if I want a job."

The Jan. 27 article ("5 SEAS depts called 'deficient,'" DP, 1/17/06) about the "deficiency" of five Engineering departments led many students to believe that a School of Education and Applied Sciences education may be losing value.

In reality, none of the Engineering departments are very likely to losing accreditation. The "deficiencies" refer to methods of gaining student feedback, but this is clarified far too late in the article.

The headline refers to five departments as "deficient." The lead paragraph makes a vague reference to deficient "methods." The second paragraph mentions that the Accreditation Board of Engineering and Technology's purpose is to ensure that Engineering is "up to established standards in its field." The front page image displays an "accreditation report" with five departments labeled as "needing improvement."

Putting two and two together, the average reader would conclude that an Engineering education is not up to par.

This article created a buzz throughout campus that is (thankfully) starting to die down. However, as an Engineering student I am concerned that many prospective students, employers, graduate schools and professors may fall into the category of "average readers."

The article, while well-intentioned, may have brought unnecessary negative publicity to the Engineering school and the University as a whole.

Ted Gomez

Engineering and Wharton sophomore

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.