Okay, I have a lot to say on this one.
If credits were calculated 1:1 (which we know they aren't when it comes to these conversions from many evaluators), the MBA from ENEB would be equal to 39 U.S. credits (13 courses, 3 credits each). They took that and condensed it down into 30. By that logic the MBCC would be 27.5 credits in the U.S. (11 courses, 2.5 each when converted by ECE), but that's a confused concept, because if the goal is to fit each degree program into a 1-year conversion, then the MBCC would have to have each course be about 2.73 credits per course instead of 2.5 in order to reach the 30 credit U.S. conversion they're rigidly trying to fit the degrees into, but we all know ECE won't do that and we have proof because the report they gave shows it as 2.5. So they're contradicting their own system in the same report. But it gets worse because here is where ECE is going off the rails:
When one year of study is calculated, it's calculated as an estimate of how much time all studies in a given degree program would take to complete, but each course is not chained to that estimate, that's not how it works. Credits aren't based on whether you took them in one year or more or less, that's not how credits work. Credits for a single course are based on the amount of hours estimated to complete that single course, and that's the same when calculating per course for every other course in a degree program, it's not calculated per calendar year since in theory and in practice a student can finish an entire degree program in less than a year (it's been done many times) or more than a year (been done many more times, lol). Their logic on that is totally flawed. What they're doing here is just applying a blanket rule without considering nuance in a situation where nuance should absolutely always be considered. The big question is, why do they feel the need to apply this rule? What purpose does it even serve (see further questioning in bold).
I guess all that can really be done is to see how the schools will apply the credits, but ECE's reasoning on foreign degrees continues to be questionable and this response only furthers that issue. It's simply unnecessary to shave credits in a rigid manner especially when the reason for doing it is logically flawed: each course is still one course, so awarding it 3 credits is not going to give a person more useable transfer credit (which seems to be part of their sticking point on what they don't want to do) because no matter what it's still being transferred as just one course. Think about it: whether you award the course 3 credits or 4, that one course can only transfer as one course, that's why shaving is nonsensical. What the shaving actually does is just open the door for schools to reject the credits, and I believe ECE knows exactly that despite what they wrote there as a justification.
Lastly, I don't care for the tone with which the evaluator wrote back. It has a bit of an air of combativeness. He needs some training in communication. It comes across like he's replying in a debate which wouldn't make sense in this context. There are better ways to write that and convey the same message to a paying customer.
If credits were calculated 1:1 (which we know they aren't when it comes to these conversions from many evaluators), the MBA from ENEB would be equal to 39 U.S. credits (13 courses, 3 credits each). They took that and condensed it down into 30. By that logic the MBCC would be 27.5 credits in the U.S. (11 courses, 2.5 each when converted by ECE), but that's a confused concept, because if the goal is to fit each degree program into a 1-year conversion, then the MBCC would have to have each course be about 2.73 credits per course instead of 2.5 in order to reach the 30 credit U.S. conversion they're rigidly trying to fit the degrees into, but we all know ECE won't do that and we have proof because the report they gave shows it as 2.5. So they're contradicting their own system in the same report. But it gets worse because here is where ECE is going off the rails:
When one year of study is calculated, it's calculated as an estimate of how much time all studies in a given degree program would take to complete, but each course is not chained to that estimate, that's not how it works. Credits aren't based on whether you took them in one year or more or less, that's not how credits work. Credits for a single course are based on the amount of hours estimated to complete that single course, and that's the same when calculating per course for every other course in a degree program, it's not calculated per calendar year since in theory and in practice a student can finish an entire degree program in less than a year (it's been done many times) or more than a year (been done many more times, lol). Their logic on that is totally flawed. What they're doing here is just applying a blanket rule without considering nuance in a situation where nuance should absolutely always be considered. The big question is, why do they feel the need to apply this rule? What purpose does it even serve (see further questioning in bold).
I guess all that can really be done is to see how the schools will apply the credits, but ECE's reasoning on foreign degrees continues to be questionable and this response only furthers that issue. It's simply unnecessary to shave credits in a rigid manner especially when the reason for doing it is logically flawed: each course is still one course, so awarding it 3 credits is not going to give a person more useable transfer credit (which seems to be part of their sticking point on what they don't want to do) because no matter what it's still being transferred as just one course. Think about it: whether you award the course 3 credits or 4, that one course can only transfer as one course, that's why shaving is nonsensical. What the shaving actually does is just open the door for schools to reject the credits, and I believe ECE knows exactly that despite what they wrote there as a justification.
Lastly, I don't care for the tone with which the evaluator wrote back. It has a bit of an air of combativeness. He needs some training in communication. It comes across like he's replying in a debate which wouldn't make sense in this context. There are better ways to write that and convey the same message to a paying customer.
![[-]](https://www.degreeforum.net/mybb/images/collapse.png)