Increasing Education Requirements
Increasing Education Requirements
(OP)
http://www.ncees.org/news/index.php?release_id=37
Above is a URL to an NCEES release where they discuss a proposal to raise the requirement for licensure to M.S. level. I have to admit I was surprised: I've heard this idea kicked around for Structural Engineers; but this makes it sound like they want to make it mandatory for ALL disciplines. I think that is a bit of a stretch. I have a hard time seeing why this should be required for a HVAC engineer or an electrical engineer.
I also think it isn't a good idea for structural engineers either (and I say that as someone who holds both a Masters and a PE). I don't understand why any educational reforms cannot be made at the undergraduate level. If not by increasing the hours required, than why not reallocate the hours? If memory serves, as an undergraduate I had dozens of hours of English, Economics, and other non-engineering courses. Why not reallocate these hours into the engineering curriculum if the B.S. is now deemed inadequate?
It really disappoints me that ASCE and NCEES have proposed this idea. I think they (ASCE especially) have fallen for the idea that if you raise the educational requirements you will improve the perception of the engineering business (and thus) gets everyone's salary higher (it's not going to happen). Also, they think it's going to reduce outsourcing by making licensure more difficult. That ignores one of the most critical aspects of outsourcing: many engineers registered here are stamping things designed overseas and (falsely) claiming they "oversaw" its design. If you raise the bar, you will still have the same thing happening (except you will have engineers with a masters degree making the same false claims). Overall, it's just a bad idea. But that is typical for ASCE.
I can certainly see a company making this a requirement for employment there (based on the work they do); but a (legal) requirement for licensure? No way.
Above is a URL to an NCEES release where they discuss a proposal to raise the requirement for licensure to M.S. level. I have to admit I was surprised: I've heard this idea kicked around for Structural Engineers; but this makes it sound like they want to make it mandatory for ALL disciplines. I think that is a bit of a stretch. I have a hard time seeing why this should be required for a HVAC engineer or an electrical engineer.
I also think it isn't a good idea for structural engineers either (and I say that as someone who holds both a Masters and a PE). I don't understand why any educational reforms cannot be made at the undergraduate level. If not by increasing the hours required, than why not reallocate the hours? If memory serves, as an undergraduate I had dozens of hours of English, Economics, and other non-engineering courses. Why not reallocate these hours into the engineering curriculum if the B.S. is now deemed inadequate?
It really disappoints me that ASCE and NCEES have proposed this idea. I think they (ASCE especially) have fallen for the idea that if you raise the educational requirements you will improve the perception of the engineering business (and thus) gets everyone's salary higher (it's not going to happen). Also, they think it's going to reduce outsourcing by making licensure more difficult. That ignores one of the most critical aspects of outsourcing: many engineers registered here are stamping things designed overseas and (falsely) claiming they "oversaw" its design. If you raise the bar, you will still have the same thing happening (except you will have engineers with a masters degree making the same false claims). Overall, it's just a bad idea. But that is typical for ASCE.
I can certainly see a company making this a requirement for employment there (based on the work they do); but a (legal) requirement for licensure? No way.





RE: Increasing Education Requirements
David
RE: Increasing Education Requirements
As an aging former PE, (no, I will not renew)I find this whole disconnect between the professional/licensing organizations and the real world... simply hysterical.
It seems that no one is really aware, or wants to discuss the ever-tightening noose being drawn around the necks of RPEs and other professionals by lawyers?
Contactors are now demanding the services of a PE.....AT THE FIELD SITE....to approve all of the day-to-day field changes commonly encountered...ON THE SPOT..!!! This ensures the contractor against any liability during construction
Contractors now attend seminars on how to groom and position themselves AGAINST THE PE inorder to win big claims at the end of the job.
Attorneys offer expensive seminars explaing how to posit questions in RFIs (Requests for field information) and how to win those big awards at job completion.
And now the NCEES is suggesting that the states require a Master's degree in order to become a target..???
What the heck ....go all the way... why stop at a Master's degree...??
I humbly recommend at least a PHD in engineering and 20 years experience before a state license is granted...!!
This modest NCEES proposal will certainly help our with
te refit and contrsuction of all of the power plants and refineries that must occur over the next 20 years....
Does anybody else out there sense a major disconnect with reality..??
My opinion only
-MJC
RE: Increasing Education Requirements
RE: Increasing Education Requirements
RE: Increasing Education Requirements
As to the question at hand, I like the increased educational requirements, although I would be more in favor of adding years spent as an EIT or a masters degree rather than just a masters. I know that there are several things that I needed to know that I didn't get from a BS program. Some of those I learned from my boss, some I learned in class getting my masters part time.
As far as the education goes, if we took out all that "silly" english, history and arts we because technicians not engineers. It is important to understand that engineers rarely design the whole system. Many specialists get together to create the parts. In buildings, where I make my living, there are at least 7 or 8 professional disciplines who are routinely involved. Understanding the system as a whole makes me a better engineer than if I were say an bonafide expert in steel design.
From the educators point of view, there is more to college than learning differential equations. Hence the breadth coursework. Colleges will not go for allowing someone to get a BS where they only took math, science and engineering classes. I think that would also have a detrimental effect on the quality of the graduates, quite the opposite as some here posit.
RE: Increasing Education Requirements
RE: Increasing Education Requirements
Um, assuming you meant "become" not "because" then does that mean every Engineering graduate from the UK (and I believe many other countries) is really only a technician?
In the UK most Engineers dropped English and the like at the age of 16 to concentrate on Maths, Physics and the like. Certainly there were very few non technical classes at university, and those there were still related to a career in Engineering (at least at my uni and I've never heard or read anything different). Even if you took an extra language like French or German it was technical French and German, not regular old conversational.
Then again the OP is related to PE, and my UK degree doesn't directly count toward EIT/FE/PE. Maybe that's why, because I didn't take the "history of rock & roll 101" & the like
thread730-223913: Education Improvements? also vaguely relevant.
KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...
RE: Increasing Education Requirements
-- MechEng2005 (EIT, exempt industry, still have time to decide if I will go for PE)
RE: Increasing Education Requirements
Eddyc, you had an outstanding point about the lack of mentoring that has become prevalent in this profession. I think people hope an advanced degree will take the place of such "real world" mentoring. It can't and it won't.
RE: Increasing Education Requirements
Don Phillips
http://worthingtonengineering.com
RE: Increasing Education Requirements
My Masters program did absolutely nothing to fix the systematic deficiencies in the system. The program I took was all about truly esoteric arithmetic that may be crucial to some aspect of research, but even the R&D guys that I know couldn't do a Laplace or Fourier Transform 6 months out of school if you held a gun to their head.
Someone who went straight from a BSME to an MSME into a pipeline Engineer job (for example) would have no idea how to tell if a line was jurisdictional, how to select a pipe coating, what material was appropriate for the pipe, what codes were applicable, or how to select a pump/compressor/valve--just like someone with a BSME. They don't necessarily need to know how to do these thing, but they need to know how to find the answers (I kept all of my text books from under grad and graduate school, and there is absolutely nothing in any of them that would answer the questions above--I got my BS 28 years ago so this is not new).
The only "fix" is to interject some reality into a university education (Co-Ops work well for this, but I keep hearing that Ivory-Tower academics are steering students away from them) and for the "Responsible Engineers" in the industry to actually assume the responsibility and mentor new engineers (maybe a requirement that the PE that recommends someone to take the PE exam carry criminal liability for the recommender if the new-PE violates the PE laws in the first 5 years?).
The MS requirement is simply trying to fix an amputation with a "Flintstones Band-Aide".
David
RE: Increasing Education Requirements
" We also complain the most about not getting the same respect as .... lawyers."
'Lawyers' and 'respect' are not two words I often see in one sentence, unless there's a 'lack of' also included.
I think we envy their salaries, not the level of respect they command.
RE: Increasing Education Requirements
BS doesnt give you enough coursework unless you want to be a structural who designs industrial dunnages or retaining walls all day.
In my experience, the people I saw complaining about the MS requirement were the ones who dont have challenging work, those who are ignorant about how complex codes have become, those who went to bad MS programs, and those who are just plain lazy.
RE: Increasing Education Requirements
Wow, you really like to paint with the broad brush, don't you? I have a license, undertake VERY challenging work, am FAR from lazy, went to a VERY good MS program (in which I received ZERO instruction in relation to ANY codes or standards). And I still find the typical M.A.Sc. and just about every M. Eng. (coursework only) to be of very little value in relation to readiness to accept and competently deliver on the responsibities of licensed professional engineering. One to two years of proper mentored practice is FAR more valuable than anything they're going to get from the Ivory Tower!
The same threats exist here in Canada: in my experience, it's the academics who are lobbying hardest for the bump to a post-graduate degree requirement. Canada's P.Eng. licensure system consists of a Bachelor's degree from an accredited program, four years of mentored experience at least 1 yr of which mst be obtained in Canada, and successful completion of an ethics and law exam- but no license is required to work as an employee under a Certificate of Authorization. What, precisely, aside from the technical under-pinning of some sort of engineering specialization, would a Masters' degree add to that licensure system?
At my uni, in my accredited program, we had four non-technical electives: two from the social sciences, and two from the humanities. The rest was ALL engineering-related. At some schools the 1st year is undifferentiated by discipline, but at mine you were streamed to a discipline from day one. So the undifferentiated 2 years of undergrad pre-eng that I'm hearing about in the US is not permitted in Canada.
What I see missing from recent grads is practical. They lack calibrated commonsense and an awareness of the larger context in which they do their calcs and prepare their drawings. I do NOT see any need for post grad work. Indeed we don't pay any extra for post grad degrees here- we count it as work experience only.
RE: Increasing Education Requirements
RE: Increasing Education Requirements
When an engineer says, "Don't do that!", the mayhem is just beginning.
RE: Increasing Education Requirements
I think equating structural engineering and chemical engineering is completely wrong. Each sector has it's own quirks. If you want to extrapolate my observation in structural to chemical, I'm sorry, I have no idea if it applies.
RE: Increasing Education Requirements
Hg
Eng-Tips policies: FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies
RE: Increasing Education Requirements
in case there's anyone here who doesn't read all the threads.
Hg
Eng-Tips policies: FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies
RE: Increasing Education Requirements
All disciplines of professional engineering need licensure as a means to protect the public. None are exempt in their entirety. And believe me, we chemical engineers are perhaps the least able to hide our mistakes- they are often seen and heard at considerable distance...
I know full well that both the educational system and the licensure system in the US is VERY different than that in Canada.
What you're arguing is that you can't provide an adequate academic background to a structural engineer in a four year Bachelors' degree. That may well be true in the US, or may not be- not having been educated there I cannot comment. Though I am not a structural engineer myself, I know many fine Canadian structural engineers who would argue that point with you quite eloquently.
RE: Increasing Education Requirements
As for your assertion that "...the people I saw complaining about the MS requirement were the ones who don't have challenging work, those who are ignorant about how complex codes have become, those who went to bad MS programs, and those who are just plain lazy..." is somewhat inaccurate because I fall into none of those categories. (I, like you, went back and got an MS later on as well [in fact, I didn't finish it until after I had already got my PE].) To be blunt, there is a wide gulf between (what is, and what should be) a legal requirement for professional practice and what a company may need (in terms of specialized skill). Someone designing trusses for a living obviously does not need a masters degree, but a company may require it if they (for example) do consulting work involving dynamic loads. It is up to the individual if they feel that through education and (more importantly) EXPERIENCE they are up to the task. Otherwise, they may have to "punt". An MS requirement (while certainly improving the background of most engineers) does not (in my humble opinion) address the bulk of the work done in this profession, nor CAN it address the lack of mentoring.
RE: Increasing Education Requirements
Not sure I would go as far as saying the bulk of work out there doesn't warrant a MS, but I see where you're coming from. Though, in my experience in the past 6 years, with 2 as a SE2, the engineers with the MS degrees were more professional and driven to do things right. Whereas there were a lot of BS engineers who just didn't care and didnt have a clue. Based on what I'm seeing thus far in grad school, I dont see any of the schluffs who copy work to get through the courses. Everyone there wants to learn the material. Of course, there's going to be the BS engineers who are honest and know what they're doing, but it seemed to me they were in the minority. I think raising the bar is going to weed out and/or prevent a lot of the lower quality folks from entering the profession. That's the ultimate goal of ASCE.
RE: Increasing Education Requirements
A couple comments:
The complaints I have heard about BASc grads come from people in firms that push the envelope and challenge thier employees regularly. BASc grads don't have the theoretical background to be of use is something I hear fairly often. Whether it is true that the actual coursework is lacking or if it has just become the norm for the more talented students to commit to graduate work is debateable.
Weight is given to the MEng, as some firms will ask new hires to go back and take the grad program part time while working. If you could find statistics of the percentage of domestic structural MEng students taking the program part time, I would think it is fairly high.
Licensing depends on location. Some cities have, or plan on, going the route of requiring a seperate structural license for anyone submitting plans. It has been considered on a Provincial basis as well.
RE: Increasing Education Requirements
;)
RE: Increasing Education Requirements
"Not sure I would go as far as saying the bulk of work out there doesn't warrant a MS, but I see where you're coming from. Though, in my experience in the past 6 years, with 2 as a SE2, the engineers with the MS degrees were more professional and driven to do things right. Whereas there were a lot of BS engineers who just didn't care and didnt have a clue. Based on what I'm seeing thus far in grad school, I dont see any of the schluffs who copy work to get through the courses. Everyone there wants to learn the material. Of course, there's going to be the BS engineers who are honest and know what they're doing, but it seemed to me they were in the minority. I think raising the bar is going to weed out and/or prevent a lot of the lower quality folks from entering the profession. That's the ultimate goal of ASCE."
I don't know that I buy the notion that requiring an MS could eliminate the "schluffs" in our business. One of the biggest bums I know has an MS, and he feels he is above doing any sort of grunt work.
It's been my experience that people who are committed enough to go through the (current) 4 step process of getting the PE aren't going to be slackers.
RE: Increasing Education Requirements
Hg
Eng-Tips policies: FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies
RE: Increasing Education Requirements
RE: Increasing Education Requirements
RE: Increasing Education Requirements
Now, why exactly salaries don't reflect this (at least to the satisfaction of some): I don't know. (Maybe we all need to unionize. :) But then again: does anyone ever think they are being paid enough? You see millionaire athletes holding out for more all the time.
RE: Increasing Education Requirements
At the end of the day, it is wanting to be a great engineer that makes one do a good job on challenging projects. While I would concede that having a MS sort of lets you know that an engineer wants to be good, that doesn't say anything about the BS only engineer who has 3 kids at home and no time to get through a MS program.
That's almost like saying, "since all corvettes are red, then any red car must be a corvette". You wouldn't make that statement so why would you say, "all MS engineers are good, so any good engineer must have a MS"?
RE: Increasing Education Requirements
My last job was in a city that couldn't attract many engineers and my salary reflected it. The company knew how difficult it would be to replace a SE. Go to places where SE's are more common and I don't receive the same treatment.
EIT, Who said end all of be all? We're talking about raising the bar.....not eliminating every problem in the industry. With as many posts as you have on this site, I'm gonna assume you're more driven than most.
RE: Increasing Education Requirements
For example, if every engineering project (including non-public works and backyard ballistic hobbies) had to be stamped by somebody with a P.E., PhD, and 30 years of experience. Well, I think that the regulatory body would end up scrapping the requirement all together before long. Granted, this is a bit of an exaggeration, but I hope the point is clear. Raising the bar to increase wages must be done carefully, or there will be a response.
I don't think I have translated my thoughts well, but I hope you get the point. The fact is that if the bar is raised and the cost of engineering work (due to wages for those qualified and such) goes up 50%, it is likely that the amount of projects will decrease. Or maybe some less complex projects will be done "under the radar" to try and avoid the requirements.
-- MechEng2005
RE: Increasing Education Requirements
RE: Increasing Education Requirements
RE: Increasing Education Requirements
KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...
RE: Increasing Education Requirements
RE: Increasing Education Requirements
Something seems to be causing a conflict of interest.
RE: Increasing Education Requirements
RE: Increasing Education Requirements
I don't believe it is merely 3 additional semesters of school. That statement has the implicit assumption that all engineering students go to college immediately after high school and at the conclusion of their BS degree have zero to so little responsibility that they can spend and additional 15k - 30k in tuition AND forego a years salary to actually get it done in a single year.
If that were the case, I know I never could have even considered engineering. I worked full time with two kids and a wife while taking SEVEN (7) years to finish my undergrad. To throw another 10-12 classes on that would have easily turned that (7) years into (10). I really believe that could have made the difference in my career path. I also do not believe that I am alone in the journey I took through school.
At the end of the day, none of these requirements are met in a vaccuum. Real life circumstances do get in the way.
Cutting out all of those engineers who didn't take the "traditional" road through college would be left out in the cold and I don't believe we'd be a better profession for that.
I graduated from a very small high school (only 53 in my graduating class) and NO ONE (not my parents, not my guidance counselor, NO ONE) encouraged me to even go to college, let alone advise me of some potential career paths based on my 790 math SAT. I ended up following the same road that every other person from my school takes, which is to finish high school, get a decent job at the local factory, get married and have kids. I had a planned child at 21. That seems absurd to me at this point in my life, but was the reality at the time. Anyway, as I was doing a job that you could train a really dumb monkey to do I was daydreaming about my calculus and physics classes (even four years after high school) and taking time to prove that the area of a circle is pir^2 using double integration and polar coordinates. I started kicking around the idea of going back to school around year 3 of this nightmare of a job, but life circumstances wouldn't allow it at the time. I had a new child to support and my wife didn't work. When my son turned two I made the decision that I could not do this work for the rest of my life. I honestly felt like I was wasting any talent I might have. I ended up enrolling in classes at the "local" community college (it was an hour drive one way), and started off the journey knowing not only that it was going to take a lot longer based on my circumstances, but that it would also be a lot more difficult based on those same circumstances. I took classes at two different community colleges (gen ed) and three different campuses of the university I attended to get done as soon as possible. The drive time from the two farthest campuses I attended was over 3 hours (I point this out only to show it was a serious committment above what typical kids going right from high school could ever imagine). I expected it to take on the order of 6 to 7 years, but if I knew it was going to be 10..... I honestly can't say I would have made the same choice. I might be a math teacher now if it were that way.
The point I'm trying to make is that just because some people can go one extra year after doing 4 doesn't mean that is the reality for everyone. I would hate to think that poor guidance offered to high school kids could prevent them from becoming productive members of this wonderful profession. I truly love what I do. If I could be anything in the world, I would want to be a structural engineer. I know this now, but it wasn't so apparent as a 17 year old kid.
Sorry for the overly long post, I just have really strong feelings about being thought of as a second rate engineer based solely on the fact that I have a BS only or that my degree is in ET and not CE. I take my job very seriously and strive to learn as much as I can as efficiently as I can and really be the best engineer I can possibly be. That should be the mark of a good engineer, not the ability to spend an extra year in grad school right away or having a BSCE instead of a BSET. I mean, at the end of the day, it's what you took out of the classes, not how many of them you had.
RE: Increasing Education Requirements
I don't know that 3 additional semesters will "bump off" young engineers. However, I question the reasoning behind requiring it. I do think it is a fair amount to ask of engineers (or engineering students). If it takes an additional 3 semesters for somebody to be qualified, maybe ABET accreditation for BS degrees should be raised (possibly requiring schools to make engineering degree programs 1-2 years longer). At least this way the cost would be for undergraduate classes instead of the increased graduate rate. Also, it would be more straight forward to students graduating high school what it was going to take to join the engineering profession.
Also, at least for a BS-Mechanical Eng. there were a number of course I took that aren't terribly relevant to my current industry. I wouldn't say there were worthless. There value was just more in providing insight into different aspects than I typically work with and providing a more "well-rounded" technical background. However, if the additional 3-semesters is not specific to my position and industry, I don't see how it would make me better at my job. I suppose one could argue it will make me a better engineer (again, more well-rounded and familiar with other aspects), but I would say that having knowledge that is not relevant to the position doesn't make the designs I create any better. So I'm supposed to spend time and money for something that is of little benefit to me, and no benefit to my employer. I just don't see the sense of it.
-- MechEng2005
RE: Increasing Education Requirements
Initially I was very skeptical about going into engineering, I had wanted to be an architect but I didn't have the money to go out of state and there aren't any good architecture schools in Colorado. However, while I wasn't very interested in the physical sciences or mathematics I happened to be very good at them. My choice four years ago was that I would pursue a civil engineering degree and then later in life to pursue a M.Arch. This stated, 5 1/2 years of engineering would have definitely scared me into pursuing a different career.
What ultimately persuaded me to pursue a M.S. was not that some big-wigs decided it was necessary for engineering students to achieve that level of education but instead because there were no structural companies that were interested in hiring someone that only has the B.S. It is my opinion that a national forum is not the right place to determine what is and what isn't a quality engineering education. Those decisions should be made the hiring firms instead.
RE: Increasing Education Requirements
Honestly, I don't feel sob stories are good reasons to not proceed with ASCE's plan.
RE: Increasing Education Requirements
RE: Increasing Education Requirements
Does more education result in more ethical engineers?
Are there more ethical engineers now than before the education standards were raised in the last century?
You say money gets in the way of ethical judgement. All engineers get paid with money. Can engineers even be ethical when they are paid with money?
RE: Increasing Education Requirements
I don't know, maybe someone has done a study paralleling ethics and how society as a whole has changed.
Sure, but money creates a constant pressure not to be. Some individuals can stand the pressure, others can't.
RE: Increasing Education Requirements
Repackage "financial considerations" as "good stewardship of resources" and ta-daa! Ethical problem magically goes away.
Hg
Eng-Tips policies: FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies
RE: Increasing Education Requirements
RE: Increasing Education Requirements
Are you saying that the large majority of engineers without MS are incompetent and the only way to ensure that the majority of engineers are competent is to require MS? That's what it sounds like to me?
RE: Increasing Education Requirements
He's saying something much worse.
In bringing up ethics he's telling us that less educated engineers are in general, "bad people."
BA162,
Are there any studies that indicated that more education makes engineers more ethical?
RE: Increasing Education Requirements
I think that is beyond a stretch to say that an engineer with a MS is more ethical than one with a BS only for no other reason than he has attained a higher degree. That makes no sense whatsoever. None. I don't even see correlation. I guess if you were comparing a high school dropout to a PhD, maybe you could make the case that the drastic difference in education/(perceived) intelligence/socioeconomic status might cause one to behave more unethically, but that's absurd, IMO, to make that leap between a BS engineer and a MS engineer. I hope that's not what he was getting at. After all, I've never seen any qualifications of ethical behavior required for a MS program, let alone the idea that it is weighted more heavily than academic success.
RE: Increasing Education Requirements
Funny- my own Masters' did neither of these things for me. But then again I'm not a structural engineer so my opinion here is irrelevant.
Oh yeah- and you can apparently tell a firm's quality based on how much it charges, and its geographical location too!
I now withdraw my stick from the hornet's nest- have a good discussion folks!
RE: Increasing Education Requirements
It's not beyond a stretch to say that requiring a MS degree will prevent some of the unethical folks from entering the profession. Typically, they're going to be the people who do the bare minimum, don't fully understand the consequences of their actions, and don't care to learn....the average MS student cant obtain a degree like that. Will there be exceptions? OF COURSE Does it mean BS engineers are worthless sacks o crud? NO, that's the conclusion you're drawing......the objective is to push the profession in a better direction.
The perception is that CIVIL is the cesspool of low quality engineers who couldn't hack it in Aero, EE, or ME. I see it when I go to CEU seminars in my region, don't you? I sure would like to see this image turned around, but as usual it looks like there'll be too many CIVIL's arguing...including those complaining that all the night school folks will be dissuaded because "it's too hard". What a joke.
RE: Increasing Education Requirements
I can't speak for CIVIL's (as you call them), but I certainly think that Structural's (taking poetic license with your terminology) are far from a cesspool of low quality engineers.
RE: Increasing Education Requirements
If the perception today is that civil engineers are of low quality, at some point in the past there must have been civil engineers of high quality.
Compared to today, did the high quality civil engineers in the past have more or less formal education?
RE: Increasing Education Requirements
(And then within the various disciplines of civil engineering, the structurally oriented sneer at the transportation engineers. Et cetera.)
Hg
Eng-Tips policies: FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies
RE: Increasing Education Requirements
"The perception is that CIVIL is the cesspool of low quality engineers who couldn't hack it in Aero, EE, or ME. I see it when I go to CEU seminars in my region, don't you? I sure would like to see this image turned around, but as usual it looks like there'll be too many CIVIL's arguing...including those complaining that all the night school folks will be dissuaded because "it's too hard". What a joke."
On the one hand you say that it is perception, then on the other hand you want to say it shows when you go to pdh seminars. No offense, but you are kind of talking out of both sides of your mouth here.
In this business I have met yahoos in every discipline. Education doesn't have anything to do with it. In fact, I would say the civil/structural guys tend to be the ones (on average) who (more often than not) have graduate degrees. How many HVAC or electrical engineers have you met that have graduate degrees? Virtually none that I know. And yet (according to you) we are perceived as being dummies despite the fact we tend to have more advanced education. So in order to fight perception you want to take it a step further and make it a legal requirement. The logic of that doesn't hold water for me. More of the same (under a legal requirement) isn't going to change anyone's perception of us (in or out of the engineering profession).
RE: Increasing Education Requirements
Well MS stands for "More of the same"
and PhD stands for "Piled higher and deeper"
RE: Increasing Education Requirements
"It is true, though, that there is a perception that civil engineers are those who couldn't make it in other disciplines (heard that from my very own biological father, EE)--and I doubt the sneerers from other disciplines bother to make the distinction between structural and other branches of civil when it comes to that."
Again: changing a legal requirement to fight a perception is ridiculous. What makes anyone think that this alteration can address that anyway? If people think an undergraduate degree in Civil/structural engineering is worthless, what makes you think they will value a MS any higher? Does anyone differentiate between an undergraduate degree and graduate degree in Sociology? How about Nuclear Engineering? Of course not, they have the same perception because of their core subject matter.
Furthermore, trying to change public perception on anything (without an almost Big Brother sized AD campaign) is futile. The general public is obsessed with dummies like Paris Hilton and Brittany Spears; and The National Enquirer has a larger readership than Time. How do you achieve any meaningful change in though patterns with a people such as this?
RE: Increasing Education Requirements
RE: Increasing Education Requirements
RE: Increasing Education Requirements
"Which batch of engineers has the higher quality, West Coast or Midwest? The experience required to take the PE exam is two years in California with an added seismic section. The SEs in Illinois will not give comity to other midwest engineers. The best that I have found are in Louisiana working on world wide oil refinery projects."
I'm not sure how an MS plays into that though. In fact the majority of the SE's I know do NOT have a(n) MS.
RE: Increasing Education Requirements
EIT, theres no problem with night school (as long as the school's program is worthwhile), the problem is when you push to prevent our profession's progress because you have 3 kids, 2 wives, and 4 dogs and therefore don't have the time. HUGE DIFFERENCE, not sure why you don't see that.
I see where this discussion has gone, and I'm sure it can go on forever. Everyone is going to have their opinion based on their personal experiences. Maybe I'm biased because the local projects I work on have no state enforcement of codes and the structural engineers around here don't seem to care. It's demoralizing when you encounter senior engineers who (for example) have no clue what the period of a structure means, or what punching shear failure is for a flat slab. When I work on projects on the west coast I see a bit more pride in people's work and I'm sure my opinion would be more lax if I worked there full time. So cut me a little slack when I show enthusiasm for more education. I know it wont solve all the problems but something is better than doing nothing.
RE: Increasing Education Requirements
RE: Increasing Education Requirements
It's interesting you bring that up (i.e. about senior engineers who don't know what the period of a structure is or punching shear). I hope these guys aren't structural, but it reminds me of the fact that I am currently working with a senior engineer (with decades more experience than I have) that doesn't understand anything about such things as requirements for lateral bracing, magnifying moments for slender reinforced concrete, modeling cracked section properties in an FEA model, the importance of meshing plate elements, etc., etc., ad nauseam. Looks like his MS (from Princeton) didn't pay off eh?
RE: Increasing Education Requirements
Midwest states take a cursory look at the general notes, and no calc requirements. There's not much governmental push to know your stuff, only the fear of something failing. Illinois is an island in the midwest. Refinery projects are in their own world and are governed to be designed (and paid) well by the oil company juggernaut. Get out into "real" louisiana, and you'll find that some areas didn't even have building departments until Katrina happened.
Like I said, MS is not going to solve EVERY problem. And further, if you know of instances where people are signing overseas designs, then it's your job to report it.
RE: Increasing Education Requirements
"It's not beyond a stretch to say that requiring a MS degree will prevent some of the unethical folks from entering the profession. Typically, they're going to be the people who do the bare minimum, don't fully understand the consequences of their actions, and don't care to learn....the average MS student cant obtain a degree like that. Will there be exceptions? OF COURSE Does it mean BS engineers are worthless sacks o crud? NO, that's the conclusion you're drawing......the objective is to push the profession in a better direction."
Thank you for clarifying that I am not a worthless sack o crud. However, the implication that I am a person that does the bare minimum, don't fully understand the consequences of my actions, and don't care to learn STILL OFFENDS ME! Maybe I am the exception you mentioned or maybe you were referring to civil/structural only, not other disciplines. However, I still suspect that you don't respect me and am offended.
-- MechEng2005
RE: Increasing Education Requirements
Hg
Eng-Tips policies: FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies
RE: Increasing Education Requirements
"Somehow, when I think engineering, I don't think Princeton."
Most people don't. But I can't think of too many rankings for engineering schools where I haven't seen them ranked very high. But this guy is an example of what I was talking about: despite his education, he really hasn't kept up with current design codes or methodology (and overall, he really isn't a great engineer). And that goes back to what I was talking about before: the competency to practice can never be solely reflected by education. In fact some jurisdictions (recognizing this) will license people without BS degrees after X-number of years of experience (assuming they pass the appropriate tests).
RE: Increasing Education Requirements
RE: Increasing Education Requirements
"So would you rather entertain the idea of a revamped and more stringent CEU system? It'd be difficult to learn a lot of the higher order stuff you get out of a MS, but at least it's still a step in the right direction."
It would depend if the material required would be relevant to that person's job. I personally would have no problem with a pdh/ceu system that would attempt to keep everyone up to speed on code. But to revamp it to try to give everyone the equivalent of (or even close to) the level of a graduate degree is impractical and unneeded (as I have already pointed out on this thread).
The bottom line is: it is up to the individual to decide what they feel competent enough to seal through both knowledge and experience (and to prepare themselves for that). Saying the knowledge cannot come through self-study (or on the job training) is ludicrous. Furthermore, the idea that a graduate degree could fill any knowledge gap (and automatically make one competent) isn't true. For example, I took a Prestressed Concrete class in grad school. If somebody brought a precast drawing to me and asked me to seal it: I'd laugh at them. Even if I was asked to check existing members: I'd decline unless I had some guidance from an engineer with practical experience in precast design (with or without a MS). Also, what makes anyone think an MS degree will somehow cover all the alleged gaps anyway? Even though I took the non-thesis option (i.e. 30 hrs of course work; all consisting of structural and Geotechnical classes) I STILL didn't get a chance to take some coursework relevant to the field (among them advanced concrete and wind). And someone who would write a thesis (typically only requiring 24 hrs coursework) would miss out on even more. So let's not kid ourselves that the MS is the end all/ cure all to our problems.
RE: Increasing Education Requirements
ht
RE: Increasing Education Requirements
I really feel part of the problem is with ABET requiring that a CE program in which you must demonstrate competence in FOUR disciplines. Why four??? What is so magical about 4? Why not make it 2? Make it 2 and then you can take 6 courses from the 2 disciplines that got the axe and you will add those 6 to the 3-4 that you'd be taking for your actual area of interest to get a grand total of...... tada.... 9-10 courses in the subject area of your choosing. This is virtually on par with the number of courses you would have taken with a MS (within your area of interest).
Honestly, how many structural engineers out there use the water resource engineering or environmental engineering that they had to take? Has it helped you to become a better structural engineer or would it have been better to take a few extra structural courses (maybe an advanced concrete or steel, or a course in wood/masonry, or an advanced analysis course (I know many CE programs don't require this for a BS, mine did but it is a BS ET - go figure).
RE: Increasing Education Requirements
"I suggest rereading ASCE Policy Statement 465. Your version is completely different than theirs."
Good. ASCE's rationale for this is highly illogical anyway. One of the reasons they give for this includes: "The diversity of society is challenging our traditional views and increasing our need for improved interpersonal and communications skills." Come again? How exactly will an MS help that? I don't recall taking any communication classes in my program. Here is another one: "Globalization has transcended the historically recognized worldwide geographic boundaries primarily as a result of enhanced communication systems."
My response: What The F@#%??????!!!!!!
RE: Increasing Education Requirements
Most people in my program do research to get everything paid for + stipend, write the thesis, and still take 30 hours of coursework. That's the way I'm headed. Coursework and sitting in the structural PhD defenses has already opened my eyes to a lot of practical subjects not learned in the BS.
By the time BS candidates are done learning the basics of math, physics, chem, materials, dynamics and statics, there isn't much time left to devote to "real" courses. I know there'd be no way I could take more than 4 structural courses because there just wasn't enough time. Taking away gen ed's is not an option because engineers are communication starved as is.
What's illogical is a MS degree holder getting through a structural program without taking any advanced concrete courses. Sounds weird and I question what school would allow such a thing.
RE: Increasing Education Requirements
(2) analysis courses - including matrix analysis and energy methods
(2) steel courses
(2) concrete courses
(1) foundation course
(1) course on wind/seismic analysis and learing how to use IBC/ASCE 7 for this
(1) year long (2 full semesters) senior project which integrated almost everything learned in the above 8 courses which required a 1-story building to be almost completely designed and detailed (with the exception of a few topics that were not addressed in the program - e.g. doing the actual diaphragm design)
I know that is more classes than most BSCE programs can offer an undergrad. I was able to take all those courses because I didn't have to take water resources, traffic engineering, or environmental engineering.
I'm (3) classes into a graduate program and I've learned little above what I learned in undergrad. In fact, It was nearly week 7 in an advanced concrete grad class before I learned a single thing I didn't have in undergrad. After that, is was almost all what I had in undergrad for the remainder.
RE: Increasing Education Requirements
"Well then, I guess the 20 page report I'm writing with my professor, presenting our findings to the design community, and that will be published is doing nothing for my communication skills."
Irrelevant as most MS programs (especially ones with the non-thesis option) revolve around structural design and analysis courses.
"By the time BS candidates are done learning the basics of math, physics, chem, materials, dynamics and statics, there isn't much time left to devote to "real" courses. I know there'd be no way I could take more than 4 structural courses because there just wasn't enough time. Taking away gen ed's is not an option because engineers are communication starved as is."
I know the hours required for a BS have changed since I graduated (with 140 hours). But when I go through my transcript as an undergrad, I quickly ID 15 hours of English; 9 hours of economics; and about 15-21 hours of other useless coursework that could be allocated to core engineering classes without undermining anyone's technical communication ability. I mean, I enjoy reading the classics as much as anyone else but if I want to read Joyce, Milton, Hemingway, et al but I can do that on my own time. How many technical writing/communication classes does one need? Surely not 15 hours worth.
"What's illogical is a MS degree holder getting through a structural program without taking any advanced concrete courses. Sounds weird and I question what school would allow such a thing."
In that case YOU need to look at ASCE's recommendations more closely yourself. ASCE's recommendation for the BOK does not mandate a class in advanced reinforced concrete.
RE: Increasing Education Requirements
If you're a structural engineer and your school doesn't make you take a reinforced concrete course for your plan of study, you should probably consider attending a different school.
RE: Increasing Education Requirements
Do you have a graduate degree or are you in grad school?
I am 3 semesters into a grad degree and the only class that I really benefited from so far was Advanced Structural Mechanics. I've also had a wood/masonry class (which I already learned in 2 years of EIT experience EVERYTHING that was taught in the class), and an Advanced Concrete class (which one of the new few things I learned was plastic design for concrete). I believe that LARGE majority of material learned in graduate design courses can be pretty easily learned from experience. The classes that, IMO, can't (or would be pretty hard to) be self taught are the mechanics/analysis courses. Most graduate programs require, at most, 2 of these courses. I have taken an advanced mechanics course, and will take an advanced analysis course, but the rest are design courses.
RE: Increasing Education Requirements
RE: Increasing Education Requirements
I'd choose to have my ACI member professor teach me advanced concrete rather than me wallowing through the text any day.
RE: Increasing Education Requirements
The answer is because class room knowledge may not translate into practical/useful knowledge. One of the main reasons I went back to Grad School was to take a course in Structural Dynamics. (Because I kept running into dynamic loading problems on the job.) How good was it? Want to know who pointed out to the class acceptable frequency ratios (forcing frequency/natural frequency) for acceptable dynamic magnification factors? ME. Want to know who pointed out to the class the maximum dynamic load factor (from a suddenly applied load)? ME. Want to know how many practical examples my ASCE member professor (with a PHD) did? Pretty much zilch. My presentation to the class (on my semester project: a fan foundation subjected to out of balance forces) was the closest thing they ever saw to something useful. What kind of homework did this guy assign? All kinds of useless stuff with numerical methods to solve Duhamel's Integral (never mind most texts are filled with charts and solutions for most loading situations where it is not necessary to evaluate Duhamel's Integral), equations of motion, and methods for solving Fourier series problems. Real useful.
Not to brag but: At some points in the class it was almost like that scene in 'Back To School' where the students turn around and start taking notes off of Rodney Dangerfield [with me playing Rodney] because he is the only person in the class with any useful knowledge. I had people ask me questions all the time (before and after class). I wound up bringing in [copied] material for those who asked. And answered questions on everything from blast loading to what type of out of balance forces are expected for different types of equipment.
As I said earlier in this thread: I'd be the last person to run down the importance of an education. But the idea of making an MS mandatory for registration is going too far. Any profession can be enhanced by more education. But for ours, this could become a permanent obstacle in ones career path. To me, that is unacceptable.
RE: Increasing Education Requirements
Kyle Chandler
www.chiefengineering.net
"To the Pessimist, the glass is half-empty. To the Optimist, the glass is half-full. To the Engineer, the glass is twice as large as it needs to be!"
RE: Increasing Education Requirements
Cheers
Greg Locock
SIG:Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
RE: Increasing Education Requirements
Sorry to hear you feel your classes were a waste. I'd be angry too if I had to teach my classes. There's junk programs out there, but to discredit the entire education system and publicly dissuade structural engineers from more education is not right. I'm in advanced dynamics right now and we've had a majority of practical assignments. I have a much better understanding about earthquake spectral response curves, how to experimentally determine building periods, how damping can hurt or help, forced vibrations on soil and on elevated structures, I can design tune mass dampers, have a MUCH better understanding about modeshapes, scaling, modal decomposition....list goes on Yea, we spent a lecture and a question on Duhamel's integral, but it wasn't anything to get chapped about. Rayleigh's quotient has proved to be very useful. Earthquake engineering is next semester, and that goes even further into real world code applications, resisting systems, etc.
A lot of things are clicking in grad school. Not just dynamics but in design courses too. Prestress next semester...man, I've yet to find a decent seminar on prestress while out working the past few years. Grad school is definitely providing more confidence and useful knowledge that goes toward making myself as a structural engineer more professional, and improving the perception of the engineering business.
RE: Increasing Education Requirements
Many are saying that the education system is sufficient to produce good engineers with 'only' a BS as a basis for their career.
RE: Increasing Education Requirements
---------------------------
Didn't say it was. The point was: years of PRACTICE and passing exams with real world type problems are necessary for licensure. I think that speaks volumes right there.
"Sorry to hear you feel your classes were a waste. I'd be angry too if I had to teach my classes. There's junk programs out there, but to discredit the entire education system and publicly dissuade structural engineers from more education is not right."
--------------------------------
First off, if you will recall, I said "I'd be the last person to run down the importance of an education" and I mean ANY level. Regardless of how theoretical anyone's education is it can have a use somewhere (maybe research). But what you can't seem to get through your head is: we are talking about a legal requirement for licensure. Not someone wanting more background as to where code equations come from, not someone who may want to teach or do research, someone who actually wants to seal drawings. Would the background of these folks be better with a higher level degree? Of course. Whose would not be? But we are talking a minimum level of competency here. As I have said previously: it is understood that you should "punt" [or seek guidance] in an area you do not feel comfortable in. Do you seriously think a course in something will prepare them [completely] to seal drawings? Of course not. You know how many structural engineers out there are self-taught wood and masonry? Quite a few.
As far as the "junk program" comment goes: where I got my MS (same place I got my BS) is actually highly regarded in the Civil Engineering community. (In fact, you probably have a few text books written by some former professors of mine.) But as I said before: there is a wide gap between the classroom and practicality. How much you want to bet if I sat in on your Structural Dynamics class I'd wind up having to give input there too? Does your professor even hold a license? How long did he practice? How many designs does he have sitting in the field today? Furthermore, at many Civil Engineering programs (across the country) a push has started for instructors to hold licenses (in fact, it was part of one of ASCE's policy statements that I saw quoted in Structural Engineer magazine sometime back). Why do you think that is?
RE: Increasing Education Requirements
RE: Increasing Education Requirements
My background is BS, work 3 years, went back for MS, and have worked for 8 years. Architectural firm doing low to mid rise buildings.
The MS made me a much more professional engineer. If that's the goal of ASCE for our profession then I'm all for it. I think it's a needed goal.
I've been around the country and have experienced a disproportionate number of BS engineers who simply don't know what they don't know....and they'll fight to the end to not have to take another class.