DL Engineering Degree

Kalos:

I agree with you that the definition I used of legitimate professional engineer is one who has obtained a PE License, but that is how it is understood by, for example, the California Board for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors

Your definition is in itself limitating, no one in your view could be a legitimate engineer without an engineering degree, asssumes that either you cannot obtain the same knowledge in other ways, or even if you do you are not legitimate because you lack a degree.

Historically and realistically there have been many good Engineers without an ABET accreditated engineering degree, and the laws have recognized that.

I also agree with the issue of social pressure, I been there, seen that, but the problem is not confined to people without an engineering major, as I told you before, there are people with such a degree who are less competent as engineers than others without the degree.

Do not get me wrong, I still think a good ABET accreditated degree is very important, my only contention is that there are other avenues to obtain the knowledge and skills required, and some states have recognized it.

 

The rational way to address this issue is to say there are several pathways to attained the status of Engineer. The preferred path would be an Engineering Degree covering specific courses.

The question to ask then. What percentage of an engineering degree is uniquely engineering?

Would it be possible to package all the unique requirements into say a post graduate diploma so that other majors could easily convert?

It all comes down to the individual in the end. Some folks have money to attend the best engineering school while others attend much cheaper unrecognized ones. The individual from the cheaper school may end up with much better competence based on aptitude etc.

 

I agree with Morleyl, for example a Chemical Engineer usually takes the following classes beyond the basic science (physics, math, and chemistry) background:

Introduction to Chemical Engineering
Chemical Engineering Thermodynamics
Introduction to Separation Processes
Chemical Kinetics and Reactor Analysis
Fluid Mechanics
Chemical Engineering Laboratory
Heat Transfer
Mass Transfer
Chemical Process Dynamics and Control
Chemical Process and Plant Design

These subjects are covered in the PE Principles and Practice test, (http://www.ncees.org/exams/professional/pe_chemical_exam_specs.pdf ) (except lab), it is not necessarily true that "an accredited Engineering curriculum gives the math, physics and chemistry in the context of engineering application", since most schools, including the top ones, do not have science classes specifically for engineers, but they are shared with science majors.

It is also true that you can cram for the PE test, but it is also true that you can do it for finals at College, especially when you are 20 years old.

If an adult with many years of experience decides to study and is able to pass that test, I do not see a reason why he or she should not be considered a "legitimate Engineer".

 

I studied for my engineering degree at an American public, but well regarded, university and I guarantee you that a number of students there got an ABET accredited degree but had no a clue about engineering. They were pathetic, and I am certain the system took care of them. But nevertheless they got an ABET accredited degree. At least at my university, and others that I visited, differential equations, calculus, linear algebra, physics, chemistry etc were courses we shared with other majors from hard sciences and other fields.

I doubt someone can pass those EIT exams without knowing well the material. If someone passes those examinations, and complies with other necessary regulations then he or she deserves to be considered at the same level as an engineer in training. I wonder how many actual PE´s could pass now that exam. I think we would be surprised to know the results.... and very frightened!

 

Love Them or Hate Them

The ABET/EAC accreditation should not be the pre-requisite for PE/EIT exam. If the exam was truly a test of knowledge then the person taking the test would prove he or she is competent by achieving adequate scores.

Does the NCEES/ State Licensing Boards cater to class distinctions by requiring club membership (ABET/EAC) or are they providing fair and unrestricted access to all? Should it matter if a person comes from a scientific background? Is it discrimination toward minority students who cannot afford to enter into the ABET/EAC college educational system? Does ABET/EAC schools accept community college credit transfers?

 

Then why not allow people to challenge exams, ofter all
they will pay lets say 1000 USD take the test if one fales then bye bye 1000USD.

I think the rational is that ABET accredited program covers and trains on a defined standard program. The test in CA used to require only more work experience in order to take PE exam if the degree is not ABET accredited I think it was 2 years for ABET and 4 for non ABET.
Basically a person with degree in Engineering from National California University has a chance at PE with DETC accredited Engineering degree.

 

This argument is not persuasive, because “engineering context” is simply not as valuable as mastery of the fundamentals. The obvious problem with “engineering context” that it dates quickly. In 2050, engineers will still be speaking the language of calculus, statics, thermodynamics, and time-value of money. But the specific engineering techniques and approaches that you learned in school will have been obsolescent for decades -- if they aren’t already.

The primary value of “engineering context” is that it helps ABET grads to hit the ground running when they leave school and start their first job. That’s a legitimate plus, and so I acknowledge that ABET grads should initially be more employable, and should qualify for licensure with less work experience, then non-ABET grads. But the “engineering context” will inevitably change rapidly, for ABET and non-ABET grads alike. Since an engineering career may last 40+ years, adaptability is a legitimate consideration for professional licensure.

And the fact is that non-ABET graduates who find work in engineering are generally quite adaptable -- otherwise they wouldn’t be in engineering in the first place. Over the long run, an adaptable non-ABET grad with a strong grasp of the fundamentals is a good candidate for professional licensure. An ABET grad who can’t progress beyond the obsolete “engineering context” that was handed to him years ago by his college professors is not.

 

I know I wouldn't pass either the EIT or PE exams today if I took them cold. But that's common. Few practicing pharmacists, lawyers, physicians, dentists engineers, accountants etc, would pass their licensing exams cold without a period of review. The purpose of the exam is not to guarantee "current competency".

One day, about 25 years ago, I had the bright idea to persuade my boss to turn all our technical employees into engineers. I worked for Northstar Computers, which with Apple was one of the first Personal Computer Manufacturers. I put out a call to all employees saying the company would pay for PE licenses for anyone who wanted to study for the exams. All kinds of people responded - design engineers, technicians, Managers, assemblers, secretaries. Michael Lindeberg himself came to the organizing session for the FE/EIT course. (Lindberg pioneered rigorous, systematic study for State Engineering License exams). Lindeberg was and is enormously successful. According to his website - www.ppi2pass.com - the normal pass rate for the FE/EIT in California is ~51%. Lindberg's graduates have ~85% pass rate. In the PE exam, the results are even more dramatic. The normal pass rate ~27%. Lindeberg's pass rate is ~81%. Both exams are VERY coachable...

I've always remembered Lindeberg's comments at the organizing session: He said that he can't make real engineers of the people who attend his courses, but he can give them an excellent chance to pass the exams and get a license... Since then, I've realized the whole business of getting an Engineering License without an underlying accredited Engineering degree is bogus.

 

No, I disagree. I bet all I have (and will have) this fellow can´t make my wife pass that examination. I would like to know who that guy was coaching, their experience, their degrees, etc... I am sure he can teach you test-taking skills to maximize your options. Fine. But I doubt he can teach you the engineering skills so any person from the street or any person without a solid engineering background (equivalent to a 4 year education) passes that exam. Unless, of course, we are talking here about some type of ESP (just joking!). Regards.

 

So. according to kalos I have to go through my company and discriminate between "bogus" engineers and real ones, no matter how competent they are.

I also agree with Lindeberg, he cannot make you a real engineer, no school can either, only your effort, dedication and experience can.

 

Not a lot. But then, how much of a medical degree (MD or DO) is uniquely medical ? Almost nothing. It is the total package of an accredited medical degree curriculum which defines the minimim requirement to take the licensing exam and practice medicine. No amount of "apprenticeship" or exam prep can (or should) replace the accredited degree in medicine. This was demonstrated early in the 20th century and a lot of the apprenticeship-based and night schools for Medicine went out of business. Law and Engineering recognized the same deficiences of training by "internship" or self-study around the same time, but were prevented (in the USA) by political pressure from restricting the Engineering License to graduates of schools of Engineering. Mainly, large companies didn't want to restrictions on who they could call an "engineer". Companies like to give out "engineer" titles in lieu of raises... It makes both the giver and the recipient look good without costing money... Seen it many times.

I've been looking for exactly that for a friend of mine with a foreign Engineering degree. I've located about a dozen MSET degrees, but they are mostly extensions of Engineering Technology rather than attempts to bridge the gap between Engineering Technology and true Engineering. The school that maybe comes closest is Wayne State's MSET, which requires a "core" of three Engineering Mathematics courses and allows a mix of Engineering and graduate Engineering Technology courses so that a candidate could - with some effort - approximate an undergraduate Engineering degree. He can then take an out-of-state PE exam because Michigan still does not allow him to take the PE...

 

I think its extreme to question that someone who is an actual PE not been an Engineer.

Even to take the exams without degree, you need certified experience, so its not a free for all process.

 

And how do you know that no amount of apprenticeship training can make one a good physician? Merely because of the way things are done in the place and time in history in which you live? That hardly proves anything! The fact is that throughout most of human history, physicians were in fact trained by apprenticeship. To assume that the way things are done in the time and place in which you live are somehow the only way (or, at any rate, the best way) is the height of cultural arrogance! The fact that tradfitional "allopathic" medicine won out over naturopathy and other approaches in the late nineteenth century and that the training of physicians by post-baccalaureate medical school leading to the title of "doctor" won out over the training of physicians by apprenticeship in the early twentieth century in no way proves that those approaches are in any way better; it only proves who bought the most, the best, and the dirtiest politicians! If you would open your eyes and your mind, you would note that past ages and other cultures do things differently than we do, you would also conceptualize that future ages will likely someday do things differently than we do, and you would also realize that our way is not necessarily naturally superior merely on account of it being our way.

 

Engineer by training or apprenticeship

Thomas Edison was the best " Engineer" in his times for having produced many inventions but T. Edison never completed a high school diploma or engineering degree.

What about Steve Jobs or Wosniak who made the Apple invention before Woz had a degree and to today S. Jobs does not have a degree in engineering.

In Germany , you can become an Engineer by training and France allows his Technology graduates after many practice years to get the coveted French State engineer title.

Some Earthwork construction machines were inventored by a construction mechanic; Chrysler , the car designer, was not an engineer.

The inventor of the fastest and sophisticated jet airplane in the old U.S.S.R. ( Soviet system ) was invented by a self-educated Russian.

 

Re: Engineer by training or apprenticeship

Sigh... Whenever the subject of "what is an engineer" comes up, someone trots out this tedious list of famous "engineers' who never got an engineering degree. The very fact there is such a list shows how unusual it is to do good work without an engineering degree. In any case, some of the examples here have feet of clay:

Thomas Edison's "inventions" were mostly utility patents and improvements on the work of previous inventors. His major contribution was the Industrial Lab, where he employed many excellent inventors and engineers and took credit for their work. Among his employees was a true genious, Tesla, who said of Edison:
"His method was inefficient in the extreme, for an immense ground had to be covered to get anything at all unless blind chance intervened and, at first, I was almost a sorry witness of his doings, knowing that just a little theory and calculation would have saved him 90 per cent of the labor. But he had a veritable contempt for book learning and mathematical knowledge..." In short, Edison would have been a better and more efficient "engineer" had he taken some engineering courses. Edison, by the way, fought tooth and nail against AC current - again because of his stubborn lack of appreciation of electrical engineering principles - ignorance, in short.

One does not "invent" a jet airplane. One marshalls the efforts of many well-educated engineers, metallurgists, physicists, etc.

 

Re: Re: Engineer by training or apprenticeship

I am still failing to see exactly whats your point. Are you saying someone with PE by exam only is ignorant?

 

Self-educated " engineers "

Here is an incomplete list of Self-Educated engineers :

Frederic Henry Royce of famous Rolls-Royce cars

Robert Fulton, steamboat pioneer

Percy Spencer ( microwave )

Philo T. Farnsworth , electrical engineer

Alfred Nobel, ( originator of the Nobel prize)_

Arthur Ernest Morgan, civil engineer, served as president of Antioch college

Enough said ...

 

Re: Self-educated " engineers "

What a pathetic, short, little list from a bygone age of self-education when that route was practical and realistic... The small numbers of exceptions proving the rule...: Get an engineering degree or very likely stay a technician forever...

Enough said...

 

Re: Re: Re: Engineer by training or apprenticeship

Gimme a break...

 

Re: Re: Self-educated " engineers "

Again, thats wrong with the Internet alone, people have many ways to self-learn today.

I do agree there is body of knowledge to make a rounded engineer, but my view of engineering is about defining problems and solving them with tools available.

No one is really saying you should not get an engineering degree, the point is that its not the only way to be an engineer.