DL Engineering Degree

I suspect one could have any degree, with more or less engineering content, and then, after acquiring a master in engineering from a British university, could become as well a chartered engineer (if I understood the regulations properly). Do you agree with that? I think one could make it at least to the Incorporated Engineer level without having an ABET accredited bachelor´s degree by completing a master´s degree in engineering by a UK institution.

The only problem I see with this route, which definitely is cheap and well regarded (from your comments), is the final project they require. I imagine it involves lots of red tape, and a lot of difficulties with supervisors, scope and lenght of the paper. Other than that, it is a great option for people who is able to manage and study difficult concepts alone. But still I think it is "doable". Thanks for bringing it up.

 

You can achieve both the IEng and CEng without a formal degree. But you need to write a thesis and attend interview. In order to get there, they have review your background to see if you can be successful. Its more like a real competency type approach.

The Exams are very good if you want to get involve in the theoretical side of engineering and actually working in Engineering. I am sure they can work something out with the project.

 

Hi Morleyl,

I happen to be interested in obtaining an IEng or CEng title from the UK as well. I sent in my documents to C & G and they sent back a LCGI (Mech.Eng) title. I have an MBA and assorted business related stuff but I have been working for over 20 years as an Engineer and have worked my way up to the title of Corporate Engineer looking after the engineering and production decisions for 36 plants in Canada and 39 in the US. I would like to have more paperwork to back up the employment title!

What would you recommend I do to advance to the IEng/CEng level? I have designed and built a great deal of proto-type equipment as well as opened and closed plenty of manufacturing plants. I have lots of experience and could use the title at this time.

Thanks,
MP8

 

Of course you can. It seem the thesis route would be ideal for you. It would cover projects you did in respect to decision making and theory behind the decisions.

You would have join one of the engineering societies in the UK first. I am with the BCS, but your background, it seem the IET would be best. Their website is www.theiet.org.

With your number years and responsibility, the CEng would be doable.

 

I would be eternally grateful if you knew where I could obtain a copy of a typical thesis so that I would be better prepared to develop my own. Do they provide such a thing?

Would the "iet" be the best choice for a mechanical engineer? I'm ready for a new challenge and this one might just be it, I've sent my inquiry off to a representative to see what next steps are.

Thanks for your insite!

MP8

 

Here is the list of licensed bodies

http://www.engc.org.uk/Institutions/Institutions.aspx

The IET covers all branches of Engineering but Mechanical one may help too.

They all provide a guide on how to write the report. Its base on previous projects mostly. It also requires analysis in a theoretical way.

 

Re: Re: Re: BSET/BSIT | CET/CIT

I must disagree with that, If a person has working experience in engineering and is capable of passing the 2 8-hour exams (FE and PE) he or she is well qualified as an Engineer.

Actually I know a guy who has an undergraduate degree in Liberal Arts, and many years of industrial experience. He holds a PE license, and is more knowledgeable in engineering than most ABET graduates.

He has proven, as Excelsior College says, that what he knows is more important that how, or where he learned.

 

AFAIK, some states require an ABET degree in order to become a PE. Other states, however, waive this requirement if one has extensive engineering experience.

 

Yes, that's true. In my view, it's like waiving requirements for a medical degree to become a physician if one has extensive experience in nursing...

No exam can be made hard enough to keep out all imposters without at the same time being so hard that it also keeps out legitimate professionals. So, with any practical FE+PE exams, some bogus "engineers" are going to slip through. That's why many professions now say passing exams is not enough - the candidate also has to have the right degree from Accredited Schools. (The problem then is what to do about legitimate foreign graduates).

Nursing has the Nurse Practitioner designation for advanced prescriptive nurses. The analogy in Engineering is the Technologist - specifically the Certified Technologist. BSET grads should be required to get a Master's MSET before being allowed to take the EIT and PE exams. Wayne State has a very good MSET degree to bring BSET grads to par. The days of professional licensure solely by apprenticeship and exam are (or should be) long gone...

 

In medicine, yes. But not in law or engineering.

In some states, it is still possible to qualify for the bar exam by apprenticeship. It's not a common route, but it exists. For example, one of the current justices of the Vermont Supreme Court (Hon. Justice Skoglund, appointed 1997) never attended law school.

And the fact is that some people -- not a lot, but some -- without ABET/EAC degrees seem to do well in engineering. In particular, people with related science degrees often "cross over" quite successfully to engineering. It's not unusual, for example, to find chemical engineers with chemistry degrees, or geotechnical engineers with geology degrees. In fact, such science "crossovers" are probably more likely to have attended graduate school than the average engineer.

The reason that apprenticeship has been largely displaced by degree programs is simple: school is faster and easier, apprenticeship takes longer and is more difficult. It's hard enough to pass the bar exam or the PE exam with appropriate degrees; but it's even harder without. Only a few people are going to make it by the apprenticeship route, and those that do will be both very smart and highly motivated.

 

That is bogus, if you are able to pass the EIT and PE, then you have the knowledge and experience expected and you are a legitimate Professional Engineer, no matter how or where you learn it, and States such as California have recognized that. Actually in order to become a PE you will need at least another four PEs willing to certify you are competent as an engineer,

 

I haven´t taken the examination but I have looked at a sample, and I have the impression one needs to know a lot of engineering in order to pass it. I doubt one could learn most of that material solely in a professional environment.

I think that RA non ABET degrees coupled with a solid master in an engineering discipline should constitute as well an aceptable background to pass the examination, especially in softer (or less traditional) engineering like industrial or manufacturing.

 

Engineering is the concept of defining problems and solving them. In order to solve those problems you need tools and those tools can be acquired in different ways. I still don't understand why some people think that exclusion would create better results. It seem to be those persons who rely solely on the paper and not competence.

Some of the persons who have significant impact on engineering did not even have degrees. So whether ABET or not, its not important except for what you really want to do in life.

 

Actually, very little of the FE ("EIT") exam is Engineering based. It is mostly a review of math, physics, a bit of chemistry, and a bit of time-value of money. The exam can be gamed: Start with a good undergraduate degree in the hard sciences - Physics certainly, Math probably, Chemistry maybe, perhaps Enginering Technology. Then put the candidate through an exam-focused, rigorous, Lindberg-type study course. If he studies the prep course well, the candidate will have an excellent chance of passing the FE/EIT exam. The PE exam can also be gamed - especially because the candidate chooses a subset of questions and is adequately prepped on a narrow range of "likely" questions.

This is the main problem with both exams. They can be gamed and deconstructed. With a rigorous prep course, you can intensely study for and pass the exam but not really have the benefit and depth of a four-year undergraduate degree in Engineering.

There's no good fix for this "discernment" problem in licensing exams. If the exams are made more difficult, then too many people will fail. The Canadian system is basically to have no exams. The entry to the Profession (PEng license) is through an accredited four year Engineering degree. The only exam is an "Ethics and Engineering Law" test. Candidates get their Accredited Degree, an Iron Ring, and a couple of years later, with approved experience, get a PEng licence. Maybe that's a better way...

 

I still think the UK version is the best. You have to attend an interview regardless of the academic background.

If you don't have a degree, then you need to write thesis plus years of real engineering experience which is verified.
Secondly, the academic standard for the Chartered Engineer title is an integrated MEng or BEng+MSc.

In overall terms getting registered is based on competence.

 

I still maintain that if you are able to prepare an pass those tests, then you are well qualified as an engineer, and probably if you have a science degree you have more depth than the average engineering graduate.

I have seen and worked with many PEs some with an engineering degree some without one, and I haven’t noticed a difference, except that from time to time the engineering school graduates make some conceptual mistake in the science underlying a given problem

 

So what exactly is the problem here? Why is it unreasonable for math, physics, or chemistry majors to take and pass a test that focuses on math, physics, and chemistry?

If you want to practice engineering, you obviously need a strong foundation in applied mathematics and the principles of physical science. An accredited engineering program is certainly a great place to learn such material. But it's not the only place where such things are taught. Engineering departments don't have a monopoly on math and physical science.

 

Your argument is circular. You define a "Legitimate Professional Engineer" as someone who has passed the exams, and then you cite as evidence for your premise people who have passed the exams. (See also "Confirmation Bias"). In my view a "Legitimate Professional Engineer" starts out with a legitimate, accredited Engineering degree, and gains experience after that under the guidance of PEs towards licensure. Since we don't agree on the basic definition, we don't have much to talk about.

That's not difficult in large large companies with many PEs. There are social pressures to sign up as a refereee, and it's easy to fudge "near engineering experience" as "real engineering experience" without feeling too guilty about it. So, many PEs would not resist giving a good reference - especially if the boss asked them to do it and it's a career-damaging move not to acquiese. Been there - seen it.

 

The problem - again - is context. An accredited Engineeering curriculum gives the math, physics and chemistry in the context of engineering application. The same information in a Math or Physics degree context does not. Otherwise, there would be no need for an Engineering curriculum - it would be sufficient just to cobble together a pastiche of math, physics, chemistry, and business courses and call it an engineering degree.

It is easy to teach a cram course for passing the FE/EIT and PE courses. Michael Lindberg (www.ppi2pass.com ) does it all the time - with impressive results. But cramming enough to pass the exams that's not the same as having the knowledge for a legitimate Professional Engineering career.

 

These are the contents of that examination.