Cleveland Institute of Electronics under 'Show Cause' status with DETC?

I'm here to beat a dead horse.
Does anyone have any inside information on CIE obtaining accreditation again?
I've received a few email replies stating that their council is working with a different accreditor to obtain national accreditation again but we're now 2 years down the road since the loss in 2014. The engineering course is back but is 1/3 the size of the degree and I don't want an unaccredited education.

From what I have pieced together the DETC wanted their instructors to carry PE licenses or similar which I admit makes sense in conversation but for an actual purpose it has none. Absolutely worthless for teaching.
If you want to go into complex, high power electrical fields you get the PE but if you don't then why even worry about ABET accreditation let alone the PE license for future plans? This point is only intensified further when you look at teaching. One guy said the PE test was still designed for civil engineers which is why you study for a year before taking it and it's a lot of work getting to the point that you even qualify to take it!
I'm sure thousands of engineers would attest to this and while it's just my opinion most people getting into electronics want to design and build machines of all shapes, sizes and purposes as opposed to design a huge power station for the illuminating company or a rural town whose needs have recently changed.

There's no justification in expecting their instructors to have a PE license and that's because most remain in the electronics side of engineering rather than the electrical size of engineering. I have no desire to design a 50gW solar power plant and distribution grid for some state or foreign country and CIE isn't the school to teach me how to do it if I did.

I've recently stepped into a brick and mortar college and after my first day want to change from electronic to mechanical and keep my fingers crossed on CIE regaining accreditation so I can do them back to back and get my 20 credits back to work for me. Just in seeing how traditional colleges do things compared to technical colleges be they DL or IRL and know it's definitely not a method I want to learn electronics from. It makes absolutely no sense to have the core requirements they do and focused courses in the processes we learn. Even brick and mortar colleges are behind the times when you look at things like CNC milling in the USA and Fusion 360 being the go to program most small shops rely on. These aren't just people cranking out parts for alternators or fishing reel spools.
A lot of them are milling guns, high tech car parts, special effects technical equipment for movie production companies and so on.

Seeing how things are done in todays schools it's no wonder our country is in shambles but I must not digress as someone there could read this, put 2 and 2 together and know exactly who I am. I couldn't see a high school grad under todays system remembering math or science for more than 2 to 3 years even if they passed chemistry and calc. It's like pouring someone a shot of uncut moonshine and dumping it into a gallon of water before handing it to them and asking them how it tastes. What happened to math being 50 to 100 problems done by hand after going over the instructions for working the problems in class?
All a thing of the past and we are doomed because of it.
Tech colleges have a 2-3% dropout rate where as traditional have a 50-66%
Tech colleges blend everything before dropping the bombshell, focused course on a subject so you're already familiar with it and can deal with the intensity now that it's the focus for the next few weeks.

Just another dismayed student wonder how many times he will have to start over at the level of an 18 year old.

 

:scratchchin: Hmmm, I'm thinking that the answer is 1+.

 

First, let me just say, I'm sorry you're having a crappy experience. Everything you've said sounds like it truly and certifiably sucks.

Second, did you complete your 20 credits while CIE was accredited? If so, why not flip them over to Penn Foster or Grantham? If DEAC accreditation was OK then, I'm assuming it's OK now.

 

CIE is no longer offering degrees.
Only trade certificates and diplomas.

Approvals

Ohio State Board of Career Colleges and Schools Approval

Approved by the Ohio State Board of Career Colleges and Schools to offer postsecondary programs of electronics technology, computer technology and electronic engineering technology. Registration Certificate 70-11-0002H.

From what I know only their Degrees were accredited really. the dilomas and certificate classes didn't have the DETC (DEAC) accreditation.
The policy was that a student could transfer these toward the AAS degree but for outside CIE the trade diplomas and certificates were only state approved.

They still have classes that will allow Associate level of Certified Electronics Technician exam.
or Broadcast Engineering diploma that allows one to become Certified Technologist with SBE.

They added training classes in IT Security and Game programming etc tec.
Good vocational training.

AS to offering degrees again, the DL market changed, everyone is offering DL , on line classes.
Its not as special or rare as it was in earlier decades, so CIE in the area of degrees has a lot of competition and financial challenges as DEAC raised the bar.

As to PE license I think possibly Certified Technologist (An ABET accredited Technology BS degree required) instructor will do.

 

I'm not an expert but I think only if one was enrolled in AS degree the credits were accredited.
The other classes for certificate or diploma were not accredited.
They were accepted in to , toward the accredited AS degree. but on its own they are not DEAC accredited.
At least that what I was told by CIE adviser in 2008.

Again, I could be wrong.

 

I didn't see where JonM stated that he was enrolled in a certificate or diploma program. So I had assumed he was enrolled in the associate's program.

I'm not going to speculate as to how CIE handled their business. At issue is really whether they awarded academic credit for a particular program at the time they were accredited. If they awarded academic credit as part of a certificate program then I would imagine those would be credits potentially eligible to transfer. If they didn't award credit then they wouldn't necessarily. If one earned 20 "credits" then it sounds like one received academic credit.

It's true that an accredited school can have programs not covered under their accreditation. But schools are also typically limited in how they move credits back and forth between the two. Otherwise it would be a means to circumvent accreditation. It's also possible that the certificates and diplomas were accredited but as postsecondary career certificates rather than as academic degrees. Penn Foster is in a similar boat. The certificates are "accredited" but that doesn't mean that one would be able to transfer the coursework completed into a degree program outside of the school. The exception to this would be the undergraduate certificates which specifically confer academic credit. I can't find any old docs on the DEAC website that would show the full scope of their accreditation. But just because the certificates may have been "accredited" doesn't mean they necessarily conferred credit. So, at issue is which program JonM was enrolled in and when the credits were completed.

To speak to JonM's other concerns, while I understand it is frustrating about the whole PE thing, I pulled up CIE's deficiency notice from DEAC. And there was a lot going on, it seems, beyond instructors not having a PE license. In fact, it looks a lot like CIE was dinged in basically every area. That's significant. And it also doesn't bode well for pursuing accreditation through another agency. If your student records are a mess no one (reputable) is going to accredit you. Accrediting bodies are stewards of Title IV funds and they don't want their name on your school if your records are all screwed up. Just look at all of the trouble ACICS is going through right now regarding schools with dated curriculum.

 

Thanks for the reply Neuhaus.
I realize I had a rather wordy post and realized afterward many people aren't interested in reading them.

I was enrolled for an AA in E. engineering when the school was still accredited but even then suspected they had a lot of problems. Ultimately I felt their biggest problem was that they were behind the times. On the other hand the literary materials are still incredibly thorough and when compared to what and how these things are taught today it in some ways made them rather superior. I will suggest this is because they were once so in tune with our military and had a high frequency of military personnel enrollment. The alumni of the school which is no longer posted in many cases have had phenomenal careers afterward many of which have worked as engineers in the military or run businesses that do work for the military.
I think it's fair to say that if they don't have it together after these last couple years it's unlikely a couple more will bring them back to a standard that can obtain DEAC accreditation.

In what I have learned through the school and independently I see no major benefit to general course requirements when earning an electronic engineering degree. I'm not backing out of my most recent educational commitment but I can see how much these traditional schools would benefit from actually seeing their system and understanding why and how you can have an engineering program that isn't mucked up with general requirements and core requirements that really aren't necessary or potentially useful for someone who is going to get an AA and never go beyond that. I've heard engineers with BAs and MAs say that they use 10% of what they learned and that these broader degrees aren't really what you had expected them to be but a means to make more money. That is of course an unfinished statement because of the years of work experience also involved in that more money.

At this point I am unsure if I will finish my degree by any means. If the school comes back in the next year or two I will return to them and hammer it out in hopefully a single term maybe two.
If not I've covered the first 1/3 of the degree which means I know all the fundamentals of analog which is enough to springboard me onto far more complicated studies than I could likely ever reach as someone wholly self taught from buying books, kits etc. on the consumer market.

After running around campus and going to classes to see how teaching is done today as opposed to when I was young gave me a premature death rattle. I have no intentions of quitting but will in all probability change majors and hope CIE gets it together. When I researched local technical colleges and saw their requirements I thought why?
Nearly exact to your general colleges/universities, the same cost if not double and I still have to jump through a lot of hoops to please an outdated education system that was necessary 60 years ago but today it's just a waste of money and time for both the students and the school.

People can laugh and mock distance learning but if they read the courses and compared them to how they were taught they would be embarrassed and grasp why I say the traditional methods and standards of brick and mortar schools does and requires a lot of unnecessary things for the students.
I thought CIE was jagged in subject transition but now I know better!

They needed to change the order of some of the lessons which was my biggest complaint. A couple lessons lacked basic explanations when you hit real circuit design such as something as simple as a voltage divider being the basis for how you switch the device on as though it's assumed the student would see it for what it is. Not when it's amongst a multitude of parts they won't!

In hindsight these issues are trivial and the real setback was assuming I knew basic electronics as they suggested you should or have taken their course in basic electronics.
If they had just bothered to express these things in more detail and with more importance I don't think they would be in the situation they are now.

When you have a student body of guys who have guessed together things like small radios, guitar pedals, subwoofer crossovers, remote actuators and so on you are getting people who think they know the basics and they don't not by a long shot. Anyway as you can tell I'm very passionate about the subject and still very serious about getting my degree through them as opposed to a brick and mortar school.

It's not that it's easier because it's absolutely not it's just that the method and style of the materials is so superior. It's fluid and you are learning electronics, the theories of operation, the math and more all at once from square 1 and it's intertwined as opposed to the jaggedness of classes putting these subjects into focus but not teaching anything more or less than what DL covers.
All that being said one of my biggest concerns was that the uni I'm at now will use the conventional tracing method which I loathe and see as a source of a lot of misunderstandings of the physics even from people who are carrying degrees from good schools.

Once I experienced what I was in for pursuing this degree that became the least of my concerns.
I will finish a couple semesters and in all likeliness change my major to mechanical while waiting for CIE to get their act together so I can finish electronics through them.

 

Since earlier in the post California National University was mentioned.
I checked faculty

Nader Bagheri, Ph.D.
University of California, Davis
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING, MECHANICAL ENGINEERING, ENGINEERING
Dr. Bagheri is a Professor of Mechanical Engineering at the California Maritime Academy (ABET Accredited). He has conducted research in the Department of Agricultural Engineering, UC Davis and served as a consultant on numerous projects including those for the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, NASA, and the Environmental Science Association.
I'm sure he brings to CNU similar value program and curriculum.

The classes are serious, they are based on similar curriculum, text books that are used in
RA, ABET accredited programs.
Students submit home work assignments, labs and design project.
Today many on line course faculty at leading universities work part time or FT remotely from home office. So for small on line school there is no need for the instructors to be in the B&M building - ON LINE is the hint.
And finally the graduates are successful engineers and technicians with good careers.
Some WC graduates work for top companies.

As to credit transfer, number of RA Universities such as APU, AMU, WGU etc will accept CIE, WC, CNU accredited credit transfer. Maybe not all of it but what is compatible to their classes.

 

When I took an associate from CIE, I was in the second graduating class, 1983. Things were very different then, we even had a section on vacuum tube biasing, but we also assembled a "micro micro processor" from discrete gates and flip-flops. I was thoroughly satisfied with the course but looking back, CIE probably wasn't my best choice. The problem is that B&M tech schools usually have ongoing relationships with tech companies which leads to internship and eventual employment opportunities. CIE didn't and really couldn't. I came to understand that D/L programs like CIE are targeted at people already working in the industry. That first job is the hardest step to a career.

But I'd like to see them get accredited again.

 

And once you get to number four or five it gets pretty easy. That's one of the reasons why we see so many "football employees" (i.e. employees who get kicked from employer to employer every few years doing roughly the same job).

 

CIE was the best career start for a friend of my who took CIE Broadcast Engineering diploma course.
He became member of the society of Broadcast Engineers and automatically certified as a Certified Broadcast Technologist.
He then accepted a paid internship at TV Station, working graveyard shift.
While continuing his education as well.
years passed he earned WC BEET degree.
Successfully passed certification exams at SBE and at work he progressed to Certified Sr. Broadcast Engineer and Chief Engineer at major broadcast organization.
He had some other training as well but the only education he received was CIE and WC.
His next challenge is to become Certified
Professional Broadcast Engineer.

Another friend of my graduated from Grantham University (DANTES) with Bachelors in Eng Tech.
He was promoted to an Engineer at his work place.

Indeed my friend who graduated from a state University starting his third year using the agreement between the state university and IBM he began internship at IBM and by the graduation having 2 years of PT work at IBM was converted FT as a staff Engineer.
I agree that many State Universities have such agreements and relationships with leading companies.

With ABET flexing and allowing 100% DL Engineering degrees I can see a more recognized rout for DL Engineering students and welcome such developments.
These programs have competitive. limited enrollment and require FT commitment.

The DL NA programs offer more flexibility for working adults while teaching the same curriculum.

 

Broadcast engineering

Because I had no internship or employment referral opportunities from my CIE program, I ended up doing TV broadcast engineering as well. The job was a blast but the pay was dismal, much less than offered in design/manufacturing shops in my city. Thing is, I don't think the CIE diploma got me the job. In those days, the entry level credential was the FCC First Class Radiotelephone License (which I had obtained before signing up with CIE).

The FCC abolished the First Phone and the regulations requiring it in the 1980s. The Society of Broadcast Engineers (SBE) offers its Certified Broadcast Technologist as a rough equivalent to the old First Phone but you don't need a diploma to take their exam. Indeed, if you are working in the field and possess either an FCC General Radiotelephone or Amateur Extra class operator license, SBE will waive the CBT exam. My point is that getting a job in broadcasting in those days was a poverty-stricken last resort. I don't know what the situation is like nowadays except that broadcasters employ fewer and fewer engineering staff as time goes by.

I note that the Grantham grad was already working for his employer when he completed his BSET. The Grantham credential did what it was designed to do, I think.

BTW, an interesting subject worth a google search "BSETs are Engineers". Apparently, in industry and for a great many engineering job titles, a BSET is an accepted substitute for the related engineering degree.

 

Broadcast Engineers do OK today.
They are required to be IT engineers as well as content today is digital and stored electronically.
With streaming services and content competition.
Actually SBE has two credentials to help broadcast engineers.
The Certified Broadcast Network Technologist and Certified Broadcast Network Engineer.
IT and ICT skills are a must today in the this filed, and from what I'm told by my friend this is making the pay more attractive.