DL Engineering Degree

Yes, it does happen, but not very often. It's not good advice to recommend someone to try get into engineering through the back door with "self" or "alternate" training if they have a choice. Most of the time, it doesn't work.

I disagree with your reason why apprenticeship has largely been displaced. It is more a matter of inconsistency of result than of training length. Too much talent was being wasted. The "Flexner Report" in 1910 was really the start of the standardization of the professions in North America. The Flexner Report was aimed solely at Medical Schools, but the other professions quickly adopted the same model, and - with more-or-less success - rejected apprenticeship and self-training in favor of a university degree model for professional certification and licensure. Within a decade or two, the Flexner Report movement enforced evidence-based medicine, and did away with all the substandard and quacky schools of medicine which operated on vocational, night school and apprenticeship models, and which often taught the superstitions of the time; homeopathy, mesmerism, naturopathy and similar mumbo-jumbo crackpotisms. These all disappeared, except for osteopathy - which largely adopted evidence-based medicine on its own, and chiropraxy, which is still pulling in suckers. (Unfortunately, they're making a comeback these days). In Law and Engineering, the conversion of the professions was incomplete, so there are still in some jurisdictions vestigial non-academic ports into these professions through self-training and examinations. Earlier in this thread, I've commented on the flaws of the examination model.

 

Re: Re: Self-educated " engineers "

This is nonsense, an exception cannot prove any rule.

Your point is trying to discredit the very notion of independent learning.

I do not question the utility of a good ABET accredited engineering degree, but that is not the only way to obtain knowledge, you can learn thermodynamics by sitting in a classroom, or by studying the same textbook on your own if yo have the capacity, desire. and dedication.

As with distance learning there are many ways to achieve the goal, sitting in a formal classroom at a B & M university or college is only one of them

 

Re: Re: Re: Self-educated " engineers "

Edited

 

Five-Year Entry-Level Engineering Degree

Well, we disagree. Most Engineering educators and higher management in industry pretty much concur the only way today to be an Engineer is through an accredited degree in Engineering. It's only a small group of DL and self-training enthusiasts who disagree. The Model Engineer proposals from the Major Engineering organizations - ASCE, NSPE, IEEE, etc - all start with a baseline accredited bachelor's degree in Engineering. Nobody bothers with DL, or apprenticship, or similar archaic baloney.

The current thinking is that even a four-year Bachelor's degree is not enough. There's just too much information that needs to be packed into a four year degree - and it can't displace the arts and humanities courses which are needed to round out a full engineering education. It looks like the basic entry-level degree for Engineering will soon either be a Master's, or the Bachelor's degree will be made a five year degree. See for example the discussion in the ASCE (Civil Engineers): www.asce.org/pdf/fpd-complete.pdf. Other professions have gone the same way and upgraded entry-level academic requirements. The LLB is now a JD. The BPharm is now a PharmD.

Incidentally, there's a difference between BEING an engineer and having the TITLE of Engineer. Titles are cheap and liberally handed out (often in lieu of pay raises), but real engineers can tell a bogus non-degreed "engineer" within thirty seconds of conversation. It's usually that obvious...

 

No ABET, No Problem

The bottom line is the UK engineeering model works. It has been proven.

 

Re: Five-Year Entry-Level Engineering Degree

So we are talking about different things, I do not disagree about the TITLE, yeas there are many fake engineers out there, but none has a PE license.

This conversation is about skills, knowledge and experience, If I walk down the hallway at this very moment and talk with many of our PE holders, I am sure I will find a couple of lame degreed engineers and many outstanding engineers without a formal engineering degree.

Moreover, distance learning does not preclude accreditation as the program at the University of North Dakota shows ( http://www.conted.und.edu/ddp/dedp/moreinfo/benefits.html )

 

California National University a DETC accredited university
in California providing Engineering program / degree.

Are graduates of the above school future Engineers?

Also as mentioned earlier UK
in UK there is no law requiring licensing of Engineers.

They have National body that certifies and registers Engineers
and its a benchmark for the employers.

Education, Training and work experience are taking in to account.

 

Re: Five-Year Entry-Level Engineering Degree

Educators, OK. But not industry. Some firms may require an ABET degree at the entry level, and may recruit only at ABET school. But after a few years, professional work experience and ability become way more important than your degree. If you can perform on the job, you can find engineering work in industry, with or without educational credentials. For example, I somehow doubt that Microsoft or Dell -- both run by college dropouts -- are sticklers for formal degrees.

I grant that if the work does not fall under the "industrial exemption", and if licensure is required, then a firm may require or strongly prefer an ABET degree. But the vast majority of non-civil engineers do work under the "industrial exemption", in which case it's not an issue.

Want more proof? Consider this -- many top engineering schools don't even bother with ABET accreditation in engineering fields where licensure is not an issue. For example, ABET accredits biomedical engineering programs, but MIT has never bothered to get it. So MIT biomedical engineering degrees are not ABET accredited. Somehow I doubt that this is a problem for their graduates.

 

Re: Five-Year Entry-Level Engineering Degree

No -- it's also the majority of state engineering boards. I reviewed a summary of state regulations at ppi2pass. Most PE boards allow non-ABET degree holders to become licensed under at least some circumstances.

This raises the question: why isn’t Kalos’ position more popular? Obviously the vast majority of PEs, and probably most PE Board members, have ABET degrees. Yet there doesn’t seem to be much concern out there about non-ABET PEs. I think there are two reasons for this.

First, relatively few people get PE licenses without ABET degrees, and those that do tend to be very experienced, smart, and motivated. So in practice, the ABET PEs aren’t upset about either the quantity or the quality of the non-ABET PEs.

Second, the engineering community in general respects tough technical examinations, and those who pass them. For whatever reason, passing the FE and PE exams is more prestigious than earning an ABET degree. And I can prove it.

Consider two hypothetical licensing systems. System A requires formal education, but no examinations. System B requires examinations, but no formal education. Which system would be more prestigious?

Well, this is not hypothetical. The State of Wisconsin fits System A: if you have an ABET degree and 8 years experience, Wisconsin will waive both the FE and PE exams, and give you a license without taking a single test.

The State of California fits System B: with 6 years experience, you can take licensing exams in California, even if you have no degree of any kind. But California is noted for its tough exams: civil candidates must pass rigorous state exams on seismic design and surveying, as well as the FE and PE. And that’s just for the base civil license: there are additional exams in the subfields of traffic, geotechnical, and structural.

And the net result? The Wisconsin PE license -- which can be obtained with an ABET degree, but without taking a single test -- is a national joke, and Wisconsin PEs are very defensive about it (in fairness, some Wisconsin PEs do take exams, even if they are not required to do so). Whereas the California Structural Engineering license -- which requires six exams totaling 37 hours, but no degree -- is widely respected as the most demanding professional engineering credential in the world.

So there you have it. In the real world, engineering licensure by exam is more prestigious than engineering licensing by accredited degree. Kalos apparently doesn't see it that way, but most other PEs do.

 

An Engineer is defined by specific skills and knowledge. You can get those by different means.

Secondly, not all Engineering degrees are equal. Someone with a Diploma of Engineer from France would think the ABET degree is a joke.

 

In the Real World

In the real world, engineers don't hang around a forum where the object is to evade the normal route to Engineering - so they're not likely to weigh in with an opinion. In the real world, engineers laugh at non-ABET-accredited Engineering degrees, and at non-degreed engineers in general. In the real world, a PE will get you a nod of appreciation, but the absence of an underlying degree, the PE holder is regarded with suspicion.

That's the ugly truth out there in the Real World.

 

Re: No ABET, No Problem

In the UK, the title "Engineer" has been thoroughly compromised by association with anyone who run an engine. Licensing and recognition of Engineers in Britain has been a mess since Brunel's time, and the Institutions like IEE are only now climbling out of the hole. Britain's "Engineering" model and contempt for university education of engineers is often cited as a contributing factor to the decline of British industry in the 20th Century. It even has a name - the "English Disease" - so it's hardly a good model.

 

Re: In the Real World

In the Real World that I'm familiar with, non-ABET PEs are entrusted to serve the public, and are issued a stamp and legal design authority.

In contrast, ABET non-PEs are legally barred from the practice of engineering, except in carefully defined circumstances (e.g. under PE supervision or in exempt fields). Violators may be charged with criminal penalties.

So which one is "regarded with suspicion" ?

 

Re: Re: Five-Year Entry-Level Engineering Degree

Hilarious ! This is "proof" ?? Biomedical Engineering is so new that ABET has barely set up the criteria. Even so , there are 36 accredited programs.

MIT recognizes the importance of accreditation - and has 13 accredited undergraduate programs - even for programs that are not normally subject to licensing - such as "Ocean Engineering" and "Environmental Engineering".

I can't find anything directly related to MIT's slowness in accrediting biomedical engineering, but another section on the MIT website shows MIT's respect for ABET accreditation:
"The Chemical Engineering Department is now offering for the first time a new degree emphasizing biological engineering applications within Chemical Engineering. It is intended for those students who wish to apply the basic engineering science and problem solving emphasis of Chemical Engineering to biological engineering problems. The degree is not currently accredited by ABET, but we expect that that accreditation will soon be forthcoming."
MIT is eager to get accreditation whenever it is feasible. You have to look long and hard to find an Engineering degree in a reputable university that is not ABET-accredited. Usually, there is some reason - such as the degree is too new and hasn't been evaluated by ABET (as in this case) - or it's only peripherally connected to Engineering and the field is still being developed - see http://summit.whitaker.org/white/foundations.html.

Out there in the Real World, ALL reputable universities covet ABET accreditation, and jealously guard the accreditation when they get it. "Many top engineering schools..." Gimme a break...

 

Kalos, don’t you think you are taking this just a bit too far? You’re not the only one here with ABET accredited degrees. I do, and I also have a master from a European university that is not accredited by ABET, but was founded way before the US began to exist. Many people here in Europe think that an ABET 4 year degree from the States is just laughable. More than once I have been forced to defend my American degree from irracional ignorants who downplay US enginering education. Please, let’s try to have a normal dialogue so others can benefit from it. That fundamentalism is disturbing.

 

Re: Re: In the Real World

I worked in California as a licensed PE for many years, and was involved with NSPE activities. There was a "caste" system among PEs, with a clear distinction between degreed PEs, and the non-degreed PEs who were regarded as bottom feeders. This is partly because California still has a lot of PEs who were grandfathered in - without effective examination - and the rest of the non-degreed PEs are assumed to be the product of hothouse cram schools - such as Lindeberg's. Maybe that's not fair - but that's the way it is.

In the Real World, a non-degreed PE will probably starve when in competition with a degreed engineer for contract business. The PE designation is only the start. When a client considers competing engineers, he will look at the resume/CV. A PE with degrees from a recognized School of Engineering will almost always get the contract before the PE with only "Central L.A. High School" or a BA in basket-weaving as his academic credential.

There's a similar situation with lawyers in California who get their license a non-traditional way - eg by an non-approved school of law. While he may have the license, he's not going to get the business. Many a good cop traded in decent pay and a good pension, for starvation as a non-degreed lawyer hustling courthouse pimps for his next meal.

 

No- I'm not taking it "too far". Someone has to point out in this DL and PE-solely-by-examination fantasyland that this is not the way things work in the real world. If you want to be an engineer in the USA (rather than a hundred years ago) - get an accredited engineering degree, and - if it is useful to do so - follow-up with a PE license. Anything else is self-delusion.

I've spent a number of years in Europe. Granted, American secondary school education is laughable - but I'm not aware a USA Engineering degree is laughable. Compared to a three-year English Engineering degree/diploma ?? It's widely agreed The USA has the world's best tertiary education system. German engineers spend a lot of years in school - many Managers have PhDs - but what do they have to show for it compared to American economic successes ?

 

Re: Re: Five-Year Entry-Level Engineering Degree

Actually, Microsoft recruits for engineers at only a select few engineering schools - and only one Canadian school - Waterloo. I've contracted with Microsoft in hardware electrical engineering several times (and once at Dell). For such jobs, if you don't have an engineering degree - and preferably from a top school - your resume will immediately be trashed. I've never seen a Microsoft hardware engineer job description that says a PE license is considered equivalent to an accredited electrical engineering degree. Occasionally Microsoft will list "degree or equivalent experience" for a specific position they need to fill quickly, but only if they're desperate and have no other choice. Non-ABET-degreed engineers almost always ride at the back of the bus.

Regarding career progression: holders of engineering degrees quickly outpace all the BSET engineering techology grads DL learners, and self-educated wannabe engineers, who all typically stall at a low level. Like it or not - that's just the way it is.

The Job Market has spoken.

 

In the Real World

I wanted to correct one line I couldn't edit after the 10 minute limit.

I wrote: "In the Real World, a non-degreed PE will probably starve when in competition with a degreed engineer for contract business."

I meant to write: "In the Real World, a non-degreed PE will probably starve when in competition with a degreed PE engineer for contract business."

 

Exceptions Proving the Rule ?

I think you misunderstand the phrase. From Wikipedia:

"The phrase "the exception proves the rule" appears to be contradictory. A common misconception is that when this was originally stated as a maxim, "proof" meant "test". In fact, as the OED explains, the origin of the expression is a legal maxim, the meaning of which, in general terms, is that when something is treated as an exception, we can infer that there is a general rule to the contrary."

In this case, the fact that a small list of exceptions can be generated, is a strong indication the contrary is true.