×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative
49

Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

2
(OP)
I sent this to ASCE's Raise the Bar Folks.  Doubt it will change anything because it seems like they have their mind made up.  Only way to fight it is through state legislators; however, I wanted to share my thought with y'all if you're bored.

My opinion:

I am thoroughly against making an MS degree mandatory for a PE license and even more so against making an SE license separate from a PE license in all states.  Essentially, it comes down to freedom, and the most important freedom, when you really think about it, is market freedom.

When does it all end?  When do we, as a society, allow people to make mistakes, fail, sometimes even die, but let it be a person's individual choice.  Individual choice is the crux of Christian thought; God could have easily made us automatons, but He let us choose between good and evil.

Engineers will fail, construction contractors will fail, maintenance plans will fail, money will be lost, people will perish.  However; in a free market economy, one of individual choices, those engineers, contractors, maintainers, poor practices...all those people will go out of business, they will cease to exist.

I don't advocate extreme libertarianism; but the way we do business now is fine.  We have a good system in place to protect the public and we give our engineers with PEs the ability to make the ethical decision whether to stamp or not to stamp drawings.

What I see as we push for the MS and the SE is a zero-fault system, with the drawbacks of implicit "guildism" but on a modern, professional level.  Do we need a PE stamp with an MS degree behind it to design a basic storm drainage system, or to design sidewalks and intersections in a new subdivision?  Do we really need an SE license to design a two story apartment building, or a 100 foot span bridge?  In Illinois, a paragon of American economic stagnation, the answer is yes to both; along with licenses for every other thing under the sun.

This is the same "safety culture" that on federal contracts doubles the price of the work.  It is a no fault, no mistake, will bear any economic price, type of thinking that is only going to add more regulation to the system.

Let's get back to that bar; instead of raising, how about we at least maintain it and really look at it.  I can understand why people are frustrated with the quality of new engineers these days, but instead of a knee jerk reaction, let's do the harder things and look at the real problems.

I went to a prestigious university where students had the ability to choose a primary and secondary field of focus in their BS.  We had to choose between Transportation (easy), Construction Management (very easy), Structural (hard), Geotechnical (hard), Water Resources Engineering (normal), and Environmental (no idea....but we'll come back to Environmental).

So what do you think a lot of students picked at this prestigious school?  Construction Management + Transportation.  Basically, we are still graduating students with no knowledge in reinforced concrete design, steel design, or foundation design.  I don't need an engineer to be an expert in these courses, but it seems like a basic knowledge of foundations, steel, and concrete ought to be something a civil engineer should know.  If I were ABET, I'm not sure I would accredit my alma matter.

To make matters worse, because of "sustainability" my alma matter added two more focus areas.  These are real gems, when you look at the course requirements, you can conceivably get a degree in "Civil and Environmental Engineering" while taking nebulous courses in things like society and the environment.  Sustainability is a practice; not something you devote fundamental engineering courses to.  It's best left to the world of real engineering, where graduates will certainly get their fill of LEED.

Even my degree is fundamentally flawed.  I have a degree in "Civil and Environmental Engineering".  This is ridiculous, I've never taken an environmental engineering class.  Until I finally found out that this used to be called "sanitary engineering", i.e. fecal management, I never was able to really wrap my head around this environmental thing.  Of course, environmental engineering is about more than that; especially how to clean up toxic sites and comply with EPA regulations...but I'm not an environmental anything, and I don't want to be.

Another fallacy often thrown around is that these days, we are taking less credit hours than our predecessors...presumably in the 50s or 60s.  If we take 16 hours a semester, which is about the limit for a reasonable brainiac, we get 128 hours to get an engineering degree. Throw in a couple of summer courses and maybe that semester where you took 18...and forgot half the information by Christmas, and you're in the 130s.

Now I worked harder in engineering college than ever before, and even harder than my job.  My peers did the same.  Many of us took 5 years total to finish.  Even my peers who picked the easier Transportation + Const. Management path worked very hard.

We all took 4 levels of Calculus, the last being Differential Equations.  We all took linear algebra, and 3 levels of Physics, including an electro-magnetism course.  We had two levels of chemistry, and 18 hours of general education courses, a class that mashed CAD, with drafting, and 3-d hand sketching, a class that mashed Matlab, with C and Unix.  The list goes on.

When I speak to some of the older engineers from the 50s and 60s; honestly, their education does not sound as difficult.  On paper they had more credit hours, but in terms of actual work, their life seemed easier.  This is anecdotal, but many of them did not seem to have needed as much calculus as us, maybe 2-3 levels maximum; and their load just seemed easier.  It was definitely also a lot easier to get into a good school back then.

I really believe we are comparing apples to oranges when we compare these engineering degrees that required 140 hours plus with our load today.  Something does not add up; because there is no way you could cram more classes into my schedule.  It's almost insulting when I read these comments, because I remember how I had no life, was absorbed 24/7 in my studying just to keep up...and then I read an article talking about how I didn't have enough hours in my degree.

Again, God given personal choice is a factor here.  Some schools in the US are definitely easier than others; not all engineering schools were created the same.  The caliber of freshmen in some schools is hard to compare with others.  Maybe that's why we see some low quality engineers out there, jump to conclusions, and decide that the MS is the solution.  Maybe the solution is for a company to be more selective in its hiring practices; to ask some fundamental technical questions at the interview; to delve into the actual courses one took, and not just behavioral questions.  Did you know Samsung actually has a GRE style test for prospective management employees?

Here's one thing I learned at a community college that was sorely lacking in my prestigious curriculum; full of "sustainability".  Land surveying, the bread and butter that civil engineering was built on.  I learned that and it completely changed how I visualized and thought as an engineer.

My question to you, those that keep pushing to "raise the bar", is this.

What do you do when John Doe, the "Construction Management + Transportation" BS now gets an online MS in Sustainable Construction Management to fulfill your requirement of "raising the bar"?

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

I am based outside of the US although I absolutely agree with all of your post.

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

3
It's all about money. Universities love the idea. Some Engineers, especially those with Masters or higher degrees, love the idea because lower supplies of Civil P.E.s (mandated by State governments) will lead to greater pay.

It's not about public safety!! Mistakes will still be made.

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

"Essentially, it comes down to freedom, and the most important freedom, when you really think about it, is market freedom."

That said, you should be arguing for the removal of all professional licensing regulations. Because that's what you're arguing for.

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

gendna2,

Requiring a masters degree for something is a response to a (perceived) problem. Do buildings fall down because the engineers lacked sufficient training to do structural analysis? If so, the masters degrees are a solution.

Do buildings fall down because the engineers lacked the practical knowledge to apply all of their college training? If so, we need a better mentoring and apprenticeship system leading to the Professional Engineer title.

Do buildings fall down because of the engineers?

Here is an interesting additional issue. We rely on all sorts of professionals to be trained, ethical and professional in their conduct. Usually, we require university degrees, which are becoming increasingly expensive. We could be headed for a system in which these careers are inaccessible to low income people. We could be headed for a system in which the professionals we must trust absolutely are in hock up to their eyeballs with student loans. They rely completely on fat pay-cheques, that may be withdrawn if they piss off the wrong people.

--
JHG

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

4
I actually love the idea. I too went to Prestigious Engineering University and came out not able to do more than basic design. Got a Masters where the professors are also practicing engineers, and learned TONS. Seems to me either the undergrad needs to be more practical or the graduate should be required.

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

I have a BS in engineering technology, and a masters in engineering. Having seen both curricula, I believe the answer to your education point lies in between the two. My understanding that the modern 4-year engineering technology program is similar to the engineering programs from the 60s and before. I came out a bit more practically-minded than perhaps some BS engineers did. Then again, after studying an engineering curriculum, I believe I really should have been exposed to some math above calculus II. The best program I believe would be either a more rigorous engineering technology program, or a less theoretical engineering program.

It is also my understanding that the PE exam was more difficult years ago (a few larger design problems as opposed to many multiple choice problems). We seem to be increasing the exam entrance requirements and decreasing the difficulty, which doesn't appear to be the right direction.

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

It's just an attempt to hop on the same gravy train that MDs established for themselves years ago.

Which I guess is okay by me, since I'm already a PE. I object to it philosophically, as a proponent of freer fairer markets, but as they say, think globally and act locally. Nothing is more local to me than my paycheck.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

DistCoop,

This Raise the Bar program appears to be Civil Engineering. It does not concern us mechies and sparkies. I have practically no exposure to civil engineers.

Here is an interesting document on CE Body of Knowledge.

A professional designation, whatever it is, promises some minimal level of education, and some standard of professional conduct. As a professional, you should not take on a task you are not qualified to do. You are a civil engineer with a batchelor's degree. You know you are not qualified to analyse a giant skyscraper. Perhaps if you have your doctorate degree and you are qualified to do skyscrapers, your lack of experience disqualifies you from taking charge of the soil studies for a bridge support.

Remember that old medical school joke? What do you call the dumbest, most useless person to graduate from medical school?

--
JHG

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

2
ASME would probably go out on a limb and require a Masters and H1-B visa for professional registration.

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

2
At the risk of upsetting everyone, I have a modest proposal...

What about a system with a "multi tiered" professional approval process ?

Originally, we had only doctors. As medicine became more complex (and bureaucratic), we developed specialist doctors, physicians assistants, special nurses etc. Problems from complex surgery to simple cuts and sprains could be addressed by the appropriate person.

Not every problem requires the full effort and attention of a doctor.

Can't the same tiered system be used in the engineering field ?

If indeed it is felt that a PE with a masters degree is necessary, lets call that something.
Lets compensate that responsibility in the same way we compensate an experienced doctor....

But most of the world operates quite well without this MANDATORY LEVEL OF EXPERTISE CREEP !

In the same way that many states require now continuing education credits to maintain a PE, this is just a money making proposition for someone.

To only have PEs with masters degrees will only ensure that this will give a well defined and specific target for lawyers and their inevitable lawsuits.

Is this what we really want our profession to become ????

MJCronin
Sr. Process Engineer

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

Individual choice is not the "crux of Christian thought". Flawed pop theology.

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

2
A masters for a Civil license? Why? Doesn't the four years of experience required prior to taking the licensing test mean anything? I think there is a lot more "training" and "knowledge" from the practical experience than any extra schooling here.

As for the Structural requirement for a masters, I can see the logic here due to the specialized nature of the profession, but then the additional experience requirement apparently is being ignored (2 years).

I went to grad school for two years, but did not get my masters, having to enter the military before I graduated. I never returned, needed or wanted to. However, the additional training was very valuable, theoretically, not practically. That came with experience over many years. You cannot get that in school unless you enter a work-study program. I did that too for four of my six years in college.

As for separating the structural from the Civil or PE in all the states, I am all for that, and have always been. It is true that Civils (PE's) can design residential and low rise buildings and do it very well, most of the time, but I have seen some god-awful excuses for structural plan, calculations, and designs from Civils too over the years, no offense intended, but it's true. Some just do not understand structure.

Personally, I do not believe that Architects should do any structure, but that is a topic for another day.

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

Quote:

If indeed it is felt that a PE with a masters degree is necessary, lets call that something. Lets compensate that responsibility in the same way we compensate an experienced doctor....

I believe that is already the case, these folks are generally getting compensated better, hired faster and working in more responsible positions, and no regulations were required to do it.

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

Yet the complaint from UK engineering graduates is that they don't get to use much of their final year material in their careers, typically. I am unusual, about 50% of my final year papers are directly relevant to my job.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

Quote:

Individual choice is not the "crux of Christian thought". Flawed pop theology.

Oh man, turn an engineering forum loose on the topics of Predestination, Free Will, and Faith/Works, and you'll get a thread longer than our Global Warming ones.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

Theological particulars aside, invoking the Almighty's name as a pillar of such a debate is a sure path to losing credibility. There are a lot of good points that are likely to simply be lost due to the tone that is struck at the beginning. Definitely takes the professionalism down a notch or two before any good points get made.

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

This is a natural consequence of the massive oversupply of run-of-the-mill Bachelors' engineering grads. Who exactly is raising this bar, and for whose benefit?

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

(OP)
If you disagree with this initiative, I urge you to visit this website and leave a message:

http://www.raisethebarforengineering.org/contact-u...

It's our profession. The least we can do is type a few words and say NO to the master's requirement for a PE.

Thank you for all the good comments, even the critical ones.

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

Experience is the best teacher. Much more is learned in actual practice of engineering than in the classroom

"Look for 3 things in a person intelligence, energy and integrity. If they don't have the last one, don't even bother with the first 2. W. Buffet

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

2
More education does not guarantee a good engineer. I've seen people with Master's and PhD's in engineering that have been very poor engineers and got very little done in the "real world".

"Look for 3 things in a person intelligence, energy and integrity. If they don't have the last one, don't even bother with the first 2. W. Buffet

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

For structural I can definitely see that being necessary. There's a ton that isn't taught at the bachelor level. And not just like 'learn on the job' stuff. Simple stuff like designing steel connections or two way concrete slab design wasn't covered until I hit master's level coursework.

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

You (USA) guys need to shake up your higher education system and decide what a 1st (bachelor) degree actually means. That way the term may be comparable with degrees from other countries. Or maybe think of a new word for it to avoid confusion.

- Steve

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

I'm with msquared48- the mentored experience is worth a hell of a lot more than a Master's. When foreign-trained engineers want to do away with our minimal requirement for 1 year mentored by a Canadian licensee in addition to at least 3 years of work experience which need not be mentored, it boils my blood- it's the only thing which makes our license mean anything in my opinion- and it means too little already, given how poorly it is enforced and by the fact that the C of A process renders the license meaningless for most employee engineers....

Yeah, I learned a lot during my Masters, but it wasn't from the coursework- it was from the WORK of having to build some apparatus and use it to make measurements that I then had to make sense of. Having a month of your life eaten by the bad positioning of a thermocouple teaches you something... It was basically high quality mentored work experience, except of course my mentors were the other grad students and postdocs rather than my supervisor- he was too busy running a department, dealing with a huge group of grad students and begging for money from various funding bodies to keep it all going.

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

Well, I'll say this on the matter.

I worked for a couple of years before going back to get my Masters degree in environmental fluid mechanics. I went back to get it because I was working under PEs with bachelors degrees who, quite honestly, didn't understand certain elements of civil hydraulics as good as they should, to design the things they were designing, nor as good as they needed to to teach me. And this was working at two of the largest, most reputable engineering companies in the country. I felt it would be unethical for me to get my PE and design the things I was designing without more schooling, so I quit my job and went back to school.

Now, I look back at some of the things I designed back then, and my skin crawls. I peer review things other PEs are designing in my field, and my skin crawls. So I get it. I think the need for a Masters might vary by field, but I can definitely understand it in structural, and I can verify first hand that it should be required in hydrology/hydraulics. Transpo? Probably not. Site? Nah, not as long as you're farming your hydrology out. Geotech? I don't really know enough to say.

Civil engineering is quite simply a very broad field, and it's hard to have a consistent opinion about the whole thing when different areas of it are so, well, different.

My $0.02, free of charge.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

I've seen plenty of work from PhDs which made my skin crawl too. We had to dump two of the three PhDs we hired as totally useless. Fortunately the third one is excellent. Specialist education is not necessarily an indication of useful specialist knowledge, nor is post-graduate work the only or even the best way to gain competence in a specialty. It's just a proxy that's easy to measure.

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

(OP)
There are many underutilized tools that could improve quality without resorting to a mandatory masters before a PE.

- Differentiate between Civil PE licenses based on afternoon exam specialty.

- Make ABET accreditation tougher.

- Increase the difficulty of the current FE Exam and PE Exam. Better yet, force people to take a civil FE exam if they want to "graduate" to civil PE exam later. Use that exam as a strong measure of skills required of a graduate.

- Spend more money on enforcement of current rules. It wouldn't surprise me if there are many state boards that are underfunded and understaffed.

- Make the experience requirements tougher.

Those are just some brainstorm ideas that would not force a one size fits all policy on everyone and further increase the costs of education across the board. Plus, it would keep education inflation in check.

This is anecdotal, but I heard that the people in charge of the first Apollo missions mostly had BS degrees...and they sent the first man to the moon.

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

"This is anecdotal, but I heard that the people in charge of the first Apollo missions mostly had BS degrees"

Back then, degress were harder to earn. On this side of the pond anyway.

"and they sent the first man to the moon."

Or did a heck of a good cover-up! surprise

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

4
I'd rather see "them" reform what a Bachelor's Degree requires in order to suit the supposed allures of a Masters. Cut out some of the required "basket weaving" and "music appreciation" and instead give some better core instruction.

_________________________________________
Engineer, Precision Manufacturing Job Shop
Tool & Die, Aerospace, Defense, Medical, Agricultural, Firearms

NX8.0, Solidworks 2014, AutoCAD LT, Autocad Plant 3D 2013, Enovia DMUv5

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

Hey Scotty. We were there, and the wind was even blowing!

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

JNieman,

That's exactly what we need over here. Drop the filler subjects and re-instate the difficult, maths-intensive, capital-intensive, space-heavy subjects which have fallen out of favour for being too hard and too costly to bother with.

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

2
Better still: stop trying to teach people to do analytical integration just as a test of their intellect, and start teaching some truly "hard" subjects related to their field of study. Some of the "soft" stuff isn't soft- technical writing isn't an optional skill.

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

Unfortunately, as an engineer, I don't have tons of money or time to throw around. If I've budgeted $5,000 for the year to grow as an engineer, I'd prefer to buy multiple books, standards, and hobbyist parts/tools of my choosing as opposed to paying for: 1 graduate course, 1 book (not of my choice), 20 homework problems poorly graded by a TA, 2-3 tests graded by a professor, and 1 on campus parking pass for the semester.

Based on experience, I think graduate courses are fun, but they are far from efficient. If you want to verify that people have sufficient knowledge and skill to perform an engineering service to the public, I would focus on improving the test methodology, not on the prerequisites for taking the test.

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

Here's the $0.02 from a humble structural engineer....

I have PE's, SE's, and even a PEng. I have a BS in Architectural Engineering -- Structural Emphasis. I have also done all of the coursework for a Master's in structural engineering. Due to being approximately 48 hours short of the required 4 years of experience prior to the application cut off date, I also have an extra 6 months of experience prior to licensure.

The additional information I learned from the graduate coursework has only been of moderate help in my career. I learned more about steel connection design and pre-stressed concrete design which has helped, but the theoretical stuff has not been dusted off in the past 15 years.

I agree with the comments about more experience. My opinion is that the state boards (and I have said this to my home state board president) need to require 5 years instead of 4 for experience and also quit giving experience credit for advanced degrees. I got out of school and learned how much I didn't know and learned it on the job (ASD being the first thing, my 2nd edition LFRD hasn't been opened in 15 years!). I did notice in school that Arch. Eng. structural students actually had more structural coursework than the Civil Eng. structural students. This translated directly to my career in that the Arch Eng. guys were further ahead in understand diaphragms, building framing, etc. than the Civil guys. A fifth year of experience would help more to address this problem than graduate coursework in Advanced Mechanics of Materials of Finite Element Analysis.

This being said, I really cannot agree with those who are opposed to separate SE licensure. To quote my steel professor "If an electrical engineer screws up, it is shocking for a few people. If a mechanical engineer screws up, a few people can get too cold. If a structural engineer screws up, we kill them off in bunches. So gentlemen, don't screw up." For the run of the mill structural engineering, a PE level of knowledge is sufficient. However, there are certain structures where the additional knowledge base tested to gain a SE is critical. I am in favor of a two-tiered system licensure system such as that found in Washington, Utah, and some of the other western states where the more complex designs are restricted to those who have proven a higher level of competence via additional testing.

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

To quote my steel professor "If an electrical engineer screws up, it is shocking for a few people. If a mechanical engineer screws up, a few people can get too cold. If a structural engineer screws up, we kill them off in bunches. So gentlemen, don't screw up."

Discuss. Bhopal. Chernobyl. DC10. None of those were structural engineers failing to look up the right table in their books.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

Personally, I try never to screw up. That's too hard. I always go with gravity and screw down.

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

(OP)
I disagree with the notion that a structural engineer's screw up is more threatening that an electrical or mechanical engineer's failure. It's really a psychological argument, because it is much easier for a layman to think of a building crumbling and killing inhabitants, than to think through the process of an algorithm on a car not working, thereby the brakes not working, thereby tens of people die and millions of dollars are wasted.

If a computer science major screws up, the electrical grid could fail and hundreds could die as part of ensuing riots, failure of hospital systems, etc... Not to mention the millions of dollars wasted in refrigerated facilities, etc... Funny thing is that due to the "industry exemption clause" they don't need any license. Even better, because CS is a field where you are judged by your abilities, not how many acronyms you have after your name, they usually do ok....they rely on this thing called the free market to sort the mediocre from the outstanding.

If a mechanical engineer screws up, the airplane could fall out of the sky. Or perhaps the engine could explode in a machine that people rely on. Maybe a soldier uses a rifle and it's so undependable that the enemy kills him and wipes out his squad (original M-16 comes to mind).

We could go on and on. If a US Congress screws up, we could needlessly invade a foreign country, stir up hundreds of years of built up hatred, and that leads to thousands dying and millions fleeing....where were the licensed professionals on that decision/execution?

It's easy for any Joe Schmo to imagine building falling = pain, but harder to make that connection in other fields, which are just as deadly when done wrong.

To add to Locock's list, the latest Toyota and GM problems come to mind. Structural engineering is already one of the most over-prescribed fields out there. You can actually do some basic seismic engineering by picking up the ASCE 7-10 and following the cookie cutter recipes. Not saying you should, but again, we built the Golden Gate, Hoover Dam, Chrysler Building, to name a few, without an SE license and a Masters.

Back to the original post, leaving structural engineering out of the equation a little, given everything already mentioned, is civil engineering really so complicated and life threatening that it needs a master's degree for a license?

To me, it again comes down to free markets and personal decision making. When you over license something, people stop doing their homework, the object becomes a commodity. Look at banks, how many people actually research the strength and integrity of the bank they open an account with? Why bother, Uncle Sam will surely pick up the tab should someone rob the bank or if it fails.

If we relied on markets instead of ever increasing licensing and educational demands, we'd get to the same end point, but in a cheaper, freer fashion. Not saying a basic license should not be a part of it, but I feel like the folks driving this thing are getting carried away.

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

We always joke that doctors get to bury their mistakes one by one- but chemical engineers' mistakes usually make the front page news.

I think all professional engineers should be licensed. I'm not even comfortable with our current situation in Canada in which one engineer takes "professional responsibility" for the work of everyone in the department under a Certificate of Authorization. There are no span of control rules (i.e. how many non-engineers or unlicensed engineers one P.Eng. can take responsibility for), no practice inspections etc., and sole proprietor engineers working in their own name STILL need a C of A even though by definition, ALL the work they do is guaranteed to be done by a P.Eng. It's a stupid system which removes most of the benefits of licensure from both most professional engineers AND the public at large.

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

I don't think requiring SEs, or any other discipline, to have Masters degrees doesn't accomplish anything useful. Having a Masters degree in no way is related to your competency as an engineer.

That said, obviously some standards need to be imposed on the profession, with some way to determine the competency of the practitioners. That's what is important.

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

I don't think the master's degree in itself is important. However, I do think reforming the coursework in the undergraduate degree to cover some of the material that is covered at a master's degree level is important. I am personally, a fan of splitting structural from civil to add in additional relevant structural coursework to structural. This would essentially allow the amount of structural coursework that is currently acquired with a bachelor's + masters to occur which just a bachelors.

I went to UC Berkeley for my master's and I found the coursework incredibly useful (perhaps not everyone would agree). The classes I took were:
-Advanced Concrete Design
-Advanced Steel Design
-Wood Design
-Advanced Matrix Structural Analysis
-Nonlinear Matrix Structural Analysis
-Dynamics of Structures
-Advanced Earthquake Analysis
-Earthquake Resistant Design

The intent of most of these classes was focused on seismic design. In my undergraduate degree, we barely touched on seismic design (perhaps others had different experiences). If you are not in seismic country, 75% of these classes would not be very useful. If you are in seismic country, I believe that the knowledge I gained on these subjects is at a much deeper understanding than you could reasonably expect to gain during on the job training (why we do something vs. how to do something). Arguably, some of the theoretical courses (structural analysis, and dynamics of structures) may not be 100% necessary, but even in those courses, a good amount was learned about good computer modeling practices and to give you a background as to how commercial software completes its calculations.

So in seismic country I am a fan of either reforming the undergraduate degree to allow for more time to cover seismic courses, or to push for a master's. For non-seismic areas, and non-structural civil engineers I'm not an expect, but I suspect it may not be necessary. In majors cities in California, most of the larger firms highly prefer a master's anyways, so in some way it is already being required to obtain jobs with those firms.



RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

10
If people go down this path, it really ought to become an "all or nothing" thing, the way it is for physicians. You either are a Doctor, or you aren't. So, forget about the delineation between MS and PhD - in the end, that's all BS, so to speak. Impose the requirement that there is only one degree, and that degree is Engineering, and to obtain a degree in Engineering, you need a PhD.

I am not in support of a system wherein, "If you ONLY have a Bachelor's degree, you can ONLY do [this], whereas if you have a Master's degree, you can do [this plus that], whereas, if you have a PhD, you can do [this plus that plus everything else].". Suppose you need someone to size a separator. An engineer with a BSc can do that using various equations and applying some empirical correlations, in balance with some judgement. An engineer with an MSc can do it, maybe faster or slower, but can derive the equations from first principles. An engineer with a PhD can do it, but can also derive new and better equations that revolutionize the "science" (or, for the supercilious among us, the Oompa-Loompa Pseudo-Science) of separator technology towards the invention of better separators. So, let's adopt the attitude that only the PhD is appropriately qualified for the task, because only the PhD actually knows enough about what's really going on to do it properly.

OK - really?

I worked with a recent grad who had not one but two Master's degrees, one in Chemical Engineering and one in Mechanical Engineering. This individual not only couldn't size a separator; neither could the person size a pump, a vessel, a heat exchanger, or a length of straight pipe; nor could the person coordinate the efforts of a small team or run a simple project. I don't know about you, but I'd have a lot of heartburn with finding myself in a position of inferiority and subservience to such an individual as a result of the creation of a "tiered licensing based on academic credentials" system. But, me with my lowly BSc and, apparently in the eyes of some (presumably, those holding advanced degrees), worthless, inconsequential and irrelevant thirty years of experience in doing all of those (and countless other) things, am quite prepared to humbly step aside and concede in favour of letting only those who actually have enough academic brains to do stuff, do stuff - if that's what the world wants. In a way, I'd even suggest that it might be a good thing: there wouldn't be a "glut" or oversupply of engineers and, of the few remaining who would then be deemed worthy under the new system, perhaps engineering could be restored to the state of the profession that it once was, and "engineers" could get on with the challenge of advancing science and applied science towards the betterment of mankind, rather than running around like a mob of misdirected nerds sheepishly accepting the governance of the business-focused MBA's who perpetually hold dominion above them.

Here's a thought. Let's suggest, for the sake of argument, that the dilution of talent in engineering is not the result of lowering the academic standards or the result of bad universities. Instead, let's suggest that it is the result of creating a global market that is profit-driven as opposed to technology-driven, and that this market allows just about anyone to do what we call "engineering" if they want to do it. Those in Alberta might remember the "Universality" initiatives 15-20 years ago that encouraged virtually anyone on the planet with anything higher than a high school diploma to have a crack at "engineering"; heck, we even re-invented (under pressure of nagging from a governing body of trade-school-educated technologists) a system that offered these masses avenues towards limited scopes of practice. Well, folks, what an absolute croc that was. All we did was open our borders to anyone in the world at a time where being more protectionist was likely more appropriate, and, far worse than that (acknowledging that there is, indeed, a pool of extremely talented engineers globally if you tap into the right places in that pool), even if the discussion is confined to our own domestic talent base, we laid a bunch of eggs in a small pond and carefully nurtured multiple thousands of tadpoles to develop into the overpopulation of frogs who are now competing for the same place on one lily pad.

Academia has not diluted engineering and eroded the worth of undergraduate degrees. The market has eroded it, simply by redefining "engineering" in such a way that most of what engineers do isn't "engineering" at all. Don't blame the universities or their graduates. We have nobody to blame but ourselves.

And the MBAs.

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

I quit ASCE a long time ago and never regretted it. A useless organization. Perhaps they believe that by having a MS degree and an SE younger engineers will be able to understand the wind provisions of ASCE 7.ponder

The OP is correct: Individual choice is the crux of Christian thought. Of course we have to make the right choices.

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

Quote:

The OP is correct: Individual choice is the crux of Christian thought.

..meh, that really depends on where exactly you fall in the hierarchy of post-reformation Christian thought, in regards to faith.v.works and predestination.

But that's definitely a different topic.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

Way to go, Snorgy.

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

Quote (SNORGY)


If people go down this path, it really ought to become an "all or nothing" thing, the way it is for physicians. You either are a Doctor, or you aren't.

...

How much training do physicians actually receive? Is their doctorate degree actually equivalent to a doctorate in some other field?

Apparently, the AMA has acknowledged that an average person going to an average doctor had an even chance of being helped, sometime early in the twentieth century. Medical doctorates go back way, way before that. The degree was the medical profession's way to showing that they were educated enough to provide medical treatment, and that all other practitioners were not.

The OP is writing about civil engineering. Neither of us are civil engineers. I have a three year technologist diploma.

--
JHG

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

when are they going to target architects who still stamp drawings including structural drawings?

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

My 2 cents...

This "Raise the Bar" initiative is the exact opposite of what should be done. It would only reinforce the problems we already have with engineering higher education. To that end here are the two issues with the U.S. higher education system for engineers:
- we have generalized our bachelor's curriculum in the U.S. to the extent that engineering BS graduates only get somewhere between 1.0 to 2.0 years of actual engineering classes.
- Civil Engineering undergrads have to take or atleast be exposed to Structural, Geotech, Transportation, Environmental and Hydraulics/Hydrology within those 1 - 2 years.

Like others here have said, I got a MS in Structural and easily learned 10x to 20x what I did in undergrad about structural. However, I don't agree with requiring an MS for any license. I don't even agree with requiring a BS for any license. Some people suggested above that ABET accreditation be made tougher for engineering universities. I think it would be more advantageous to go the opposite direction...

- Retain "freedom" by allowing anyone to take any discipline's exam. And I do mean anyone. No degrees required at all. If a person can learn structural, electrical, etc engineering at their local library... more power to them. This would force free market pressure on universities to:
-- actually teach useful knowledge
-- not force students to take so many non-engineering core courses
-- divide up engineering curriculum so that course loads match the intended disciplinary route (e.g. structural vs environmental vs tranportation, etc)
- Make the higher level engineering exams difficult. Really difficult. I took the CE exam and almost fell asleep. The SE exam was tougher, but it still wasn't really that big of a challenge.
- Separate exam results from required experience. In other words, one could take and pass the electrical exam with no on-the-job experience (and get jobs with those results), but couldn't actually be licensed until a certain amount of experience was gained and documented. That way young aspiring future engineers don't get stuck in the, "need experience to get a job, can't get experience without a job" loop.

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

I am a Civil Engineer with a major in the structures option. As stated earlier, several disciplines in Civil Engineering. Of the 105 Civil's in my class, only 3 of us took the structures option. This meant our option classes in Sr. year were all more advanced structural classes.

After graduating in 1972 I stayed on for a year and a half of graduate courses because of a weak job market. Did not get my masters then as a change to the Universities main-frame screwed up my MSCE project's computer program. Those extra courses always provided me with additional insight into structures that those with a BSCE only did not have.

Also, a lifelong member of ASCE. With all of that I have not been in favor of the Body of Knowledge proposal as it has developed. It's an attempt to limit PE's and maybe enhance our profession by affecting supply and demand - but it is not the way to go about it.

As stated above, mentoring, on-the-job-training, etc. were always considered part of the PE training. It should still be enough. And now with the Continuing Education requirements, there are additional hurdles placed on PE's once they become registered. Those courses could be more pertinent and structured so as to force us to really learn, instead of just going through the motions (i.e. log-in; download PDF document; download quiz; do word search for key phrases; answer multiple-choice questions; submit quiz; and print out certificate).

Finally, I've only lived and worked in MI, MN, and WI so the SE was not required. I can understand with seismic problems, but otherwise our work is not "rocket science". When I took the PE in MN, the afternoon was tailored toward your declared major - in my case Structural. I would hope that if the states I am registered in make this leap, I would be given the opportunity to be grandfathered into the SE.

gjc

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

My "2 cents" is similar to that of msquared48 and others: The 4 years of apprenticeship between the EIT and the PE exam is very equivalent to a Masters program. First you study (or self-teach) and research how to plan this new project, then you perform the calculations for a project under the guidance of a PE (or Professor), then you guide the building of the project (or build your widget in the school lab), and then you prepare a report for the code office (or prepare a thesis for the University). Those of us in the field for decades have done many equivalent masters programs.

I have worked with brilliant young engineers with a Bachelors. I have also worked with PhD's out of school whom I have had the pleasure to mentor. (actually mentoring young engineers is what the present EIT-to-PE is supposed to be all about.) Yes, the MS and PhD are a little smarter but my opinion: No. I don't think a Masters should be required for a PE. The 4 yr apprenticeship plus the difficult PE exam is enough to weed out incompetent engineers.

gendna2, Thank you for the link to the website. I encourage all engineers to review it. Whether you are pro or con, your opinion is important here instead of that of a bureaucrat.

Darrell Hambley P.E.
SENTEK Engineering, LLC

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

Thanks for gendna2's link to the website. I submitted a comment to ASCE on that website which I've quoted below to add to this discussion

Quote (Me to ASCE)

I'm writing to express my concern regarding the requirement to have licensed engineers have a masters degree as proposed by the Raise the Bar initiative. In my experience a masters degree does not always correlate to a "better" engineer.

In my opinion, and based on experience, the better way would be specific license or title restrictions based on passing standardized exams. This is similar to how the structure engineering exam is being handled in many states. In these states you either cannot call oneself or practice as a structural engineer without passing the 16-hour SE examination. I fully support this. If practical, it would make sense to have additional title restrictions on other disciplines. Thus, one could be a professional engineer simply by passing the PE and the usual state requirements. However, one could only be titled a chemical engineer if they passed a specific additional examination on the principles of chemical engineering. In this way we simultaneously avoid shutting out much of the engineering profession due to increased requirements while also providing a measurable standard with which engineers and non-engineers alike can judge our professionals in the engineering community.

In addition, the cost for licensure to the engineering community would increase under the Raise the Bar initiative. This puts an unnecessary burden on prospective engineers and may cause many people considering engineering to not get licensed or to seek other careers. I feel this could seriously hurt the engineering community and negate any gain to the community through the proposed action.

In conclusion, I'm concerned that ASCE is proposing that engineers spend more time in school and less in the office. It's been my experience that an engineer learns much more practical skills outside of the classroom. While classroom education is an important and required part of becoming an engineer the real learning begins once the prospective engineer is faced with real world tasks outside of the classroom. The sooner we can present prospective engineers with real world applications of their knowledge and skills the better they will be prepared for becoming an engineer.

Thus, regarding advancing the engineering community, I feel that requiring a licensed engineer to hold a masters is well-intentioned conceptual step in providing a higher standard of engineers, which I agree is required, but it is an inefficient and un-standardized approach with less practical value for the engineer and the engineering community than other approaches. I encourage ASCE to modify the Raise the Bar initiative goals as I have outlined above to reduce the number of hours an engineer spends in the classroom and maximize the number of hours spend in real world applications.

Maine EIT, Civil/Structural.

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

The purpose of requiring a Masters Degree, as I see it, is two-fold:
It provides a higher minimum of engineering education.
It raises the entry barrier to a P.E.

I received a Masters Degree in Civil Engineering with a Structural emphasis. An undergraduate degree in Civil covers a pretty wide spectrum of subjects and the difference between “specialties” is only a few courses.

The Masters Degree did provide significantly more knowledge about Structural Engineering. I also agree with the people who promote experience as the best teacher. I was fortunate that early in my career I worked for great engineering companies and had highly experienced bosses (They were ALL P.E.s). But that was then; this is now.

I think “raising the bar” is rather pointless. A P.E. is NOT highly respected. It certainly is not necessary to work as an engineer. It is not even needed to be engineering management.

I recently worked at a company where the Manager of Structural Engineering and the Director of Engineering were NOT P.E.s. They did not have much respect for P.E.s, obviously, and felt they only had to have a few on staff who would stamp anything they wanted them to. Most P.E.s were terrified to refuse to stamp anything.

Virtually all states have very broad definitions of what is considered "engineering" and requiring a PE. Most state laws say something along the lines of "you can't advertise yourself as an engineer or perform engineering work without a license except for work done for your employer as the end user".

The business lobby is much more powerful than the NSPE. There are very few cases of a state going after someone for practicing engineering or calling themselves an engineer while not having a PE.

“Raising the bar” will only slightly reduce the number of P.E.s and increase the number of people practicing engineering without a license.

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

The other thing people have to think about is, how retroactive is the ASCE prepared to make it? Are PEs without Masters Degrees going to be stripped of their titles and their livelihood? When they are prepared to do THAT, then - and only then - should any such initiative be taken seriously.

Yeah...good luck with that.

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

I'd be nearly certain that they would not apply any of these provisions retroactively.
In California for instance, engineers that were licensed before January 1, 1982 are legally allowed to practice all aspects of land surveying.
I suspect any changes would only effect future licenses.

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

I think they even mention specifically on the website that this would not be retroactive.

Maine EIT, Civil/Structural.

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative



Well hang it all! I scrolled thru most of the posts and still cant find the answer.

What do you call the dumbest, most useless person to graduate from medical school?

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

Quote (cjccmc)



Well hang it all! I scrolled thru most of the posts and still cant find the answer.

What do you call the dumbest, most useless person to graduate from medical school?

It is an old joke I assumed people were familiar with. You address them as Doctor.

--
JHG

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

I am from out of the US but I absolutely agree with the opposition to the ASCE initiative. Of course, it is all about putting money in the pockets of the universities.

I am a civil engineer, I got an MSc, I am a chartered engineer and I can assure that no master can be a substitute for relevant practical experience in civil engineering. More academic education and more difficult exams cannot guarantee a good civil engineer. If a bachelor in civil engineering is not ok, the problem could be that the BSc/BEng are not well designed and employers are training graduates as CAE monkeys not proper civil engineers.

Regarding the porposed divorce of structural engineering and civil engineering, well, I have been moving between fluids and structures projects and, honestly, I feel helpful both understanding non-structural things in structural engineering projects and understanding structural issues in many non-structural engineering endeavours.

http://notonlybridges.blogspot.com

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

I'm an electrical, BS in 1973, PE in 1990. I've spent very little of my carreer in a design office - literally like 6 months total in forty years. And I spent a bunch of time pulling wire, running conduit, making up connections, troubleshootng recalcitrant equipment. Definitely a field dog. And I have an opinion:

I have no animosity toward design engineers. Without them I'd have made a lot less money. Someone has to take their designs and build something that will actually work.

I am always amazed how often the equipment is laid out on the drawings to get the best fit and look on the paper.

I have been extremely fortunate in that I've never had to work a job with faceless hordes of union workers coupled with innumerable layers of bureacracy.

In my opinion:
Mediochre design and good crews - the job will come out okay.
Good design and poor crews - the job is screwed..
And this is provided the owners will pay for quality material

Paraphrase of actual conversation:
(High level manager) What the hell is wrong? Get down there and get this working.
(Me) The equipment is akin to chicken shit and you want me to make soup. Okay, I'm on it - You get the first bowl.
Amazingly the the conversation went down hill after that

MS degree? I don't see how it matters. The current state regulations are (paraphrased):
acredited college 4 year degree
4 years experience, including 24 months responsible charge
Pass EIT (I think it is called an FE now) pass the PE exam and one can now charge for "product of engineering.
This hasn't changed in the last 40 years (or so). And we built a lot of stuff.

The greatest generation didn't like us baby boomers much. And I hear the BB generation bad mouthing the Next Generation. They will do fine - and it won't take an MS degree to do the bulk of it.

If you made it this far - thank you for listening to my rambling

ice

Harmless flakes working together can unleash an avalanche of destruction

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

As a fairly recent grad (2008) from engineering school and a recent PE (2012) with only a BSE in Civil Engineering I have a few thoughts.

First, I find the proposed requirement to obtain a Masters is ridiculous for a few reasons. From my own experience I found that learning takes off on the job. I have learned way more in my 6.5 years of engineering experience than I did in school. I understand there is probably going to be some sort of grandfather clause associated with any new rule, but to play the game, if I went back to school now for a masters degree I would most likely be no better off and arguably worse off as it would limit the time spent on the job. As the current requirement to obtain a PE requires four years of relevant, documented experience, the amount of knowledge gained in those four years post graduation will more than account for the two years spent behind a book in a classroom.

Second, engineering is an ever changing field. Any good professional realizes this and takes it upon himself to understand the trends and new design methodology to stay on top of the field. Self study is a practical requirement to ensure that you are consistently doing a good job. Also, a masters just out of college is done with your best guess as to what you want to do. How often do we realize we have favorites on the job? As our careers progress toward (hopefully) a sub-discipline that we like the most we can direct our self-study toward what is most applicable to us. This is going to be more productive in the long run than getting a masters will be.

Third, I find the thought of a masters being required more an indictment of the current standards for a bachelors degree than for the actual need for more qualified engineers. My degree program required 128 credit hours. The amount of time spent in school was more than enough time for me to gain adequate knowledge to not be completely clueless as I stepped into my first job. However, I still felt overwhelmed. My degree required some amount of humanities courses which I find irrelevant. Sure the academics want us well rounded individuals with a broad knowledge base, but it is their misunderstanding that tells them that this knowledge base is best achieved in school. Engineers are smart enough to know that some amount of social skills are required to do their job and some amount of knowledge outside of the engineering field is generally preferred, but that comes with being human and doesn't need to be told to us. We don't need college to grow in knowledge in other areas. I took 16 credit hours of math and, so far in my career, I've taken integrals and derivatives which are all taught in the first Calculus class. By the time I worked through all the red tape classes to get at what I wanted to do I was almost done with college. Shouldn't structural analysis, steel design, concrete design, and others be introduced very early on in our college careers (using structural engineering as an example)? There are enough required but unnecessary classes that could be eliminated in favor of engineering focused classes that would allow for individuals to achieve masters level knowledge in four years.

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

I dunno guys, I practiced in the field for almost a decade before going back for a MS and can say it was worth it from a technical perspective for me. Learned a lot about the development of codes and the research process which has become useful in practice. That being said, I think the whole initiative is to improve perception of our industry by outsiders. Owners, clients, etc (aka people who dont know better), seem to take people with advanced degrees more seriously whether or not its really justified.

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

The biggest issue I have with this initiative is the language and the type of additional courses they are talking about including in the requirements to receive a master's degree. I could maybe support it if they were talking about adding a bunch more technical requirements to make engineers more educated in their desired field or specialty, however from the articles I have read, they are talking about adding a bunch of touchy-feely courses in international relations, human interaction, green design, etc, etc. They use the whole idea about how the engineering field is world wide and engineers need to know how to work in this global economy and relate to all the interactions involved in other cultures. That is a one size fits all approach assuming that most engineers are going to work for large international firms. I would guess that less than 25 % of engineers that actually get licensed are employed or are ever involved with firms that do international work.

It all comes down to what was said in the earlier posts: the ASCE is trying to make engineering on the same level as doctors and lawyers for educational requirement prior to licensing with the idea that it will bring a higher level of respect to the profession and in turn increased wages...which will never happen.

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

jdgengineer wrote:
"I went to UC Berkeley for my master's and I found the coursework incredibly useful (perhaps not everyone would agree). The classes I took were:
-Advanced Concrete Design
-Advanced Steel Design
-Wood Design
-Advanced Matrix Structural Analysis
-Nonlinear Matrix Structural Analysis
-Dynamics of Structures
-Advanced Earthquake Analysis
-Earthquake Resistant Design"


Most of these classes were part of my BS degree in the mid 80s. Are they not part of the BS programs anymore?

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

None of them were for my BS in Civil Engineering. Unless you want to count the typical steel and concrete design courses, or the matrix structural analysis course, as "advanced". I did take wood design as an elective but it was typically a graduate level course.

Maine Professional and Structural Engineer. www.fepc.us
(Just passed the 16-hour SE exam, woohoo!)

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

Among others:

BS degree (2010)
Concrete Design
Timber/Masonry Design (as elective)
Advanced Structural Analysis (as elective)

MS Degree (2012)
Steel Design
Advanced Concrete Design
Advanced Steel Design
Dynamics of Structures
Advanced Earthquake Analysis
Earthquake Resistant Design

And that was at a "rigorous, engineering focused" school with minimal liberal arts/humanities classes.

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

The last group of posts seem to be skirting an issue that is prevalent in the "unwashed" masses that make minimum wage. There is continual pressure to make productivity improvements, which, for a mostly brain-dependent industry means that you try to cut salaries. An (obvious) goal, therefore, might be to winnow out the fewer MS engineers to be the, previously, licensed engineers, and make the BS engineers to be the equivalent of nurse practitioner or physician's assistants, who are now tasked with treating patients at a much lower wage than the full-up doctors as a way of keeping medical costs down.

The posts that I've read about getting an MS is that in the SE and CE fields, there's little premium for getting the advanced degree, so the way to higher productivity and cost efficiency is to push down everyone that doesn't have an MS.

Not that I'm a conspiracy theorist... just saying...

TTFN
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers


Of course I can. I can do anything. I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
There is a homework forum hosted by engineering.com: http://www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

BS in Civil? My degree was BS in Architectural Engineering (structural specialty) and I had:

Advanced Structural Analysis
Soil Mechanics
Advanced Steel
Advanced Concrete
Wood/Masonry Design

Other classes I had that really helped:
Construction Law
Sustainable Design
Estimating
Project Management for CM
(2) Electrical Design Courses
(2) HVAC Design Courses
A full year Senior Design Project where I drafted/engineered a building with other specialties.

Even though I only have a BS, I was still able to pass the 16 hour SE Exam with some effort.

There are other structurals at my work with MS Degrees and for the most part, I still feel technically equal to them.

I'm constantly learning, whether on this site, webinars, publications from AISC,ACI,AISI or APA. And paying good text books when they go on sale to fill out my library.

I can learn and be much better at work by spending 40k in the above ways. School is just so expensive, I can't justify it.

Maybe school will come down at some point and it'll be worth it for me.


RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

I was an opponent of the MS requirements- but if schools aren't teaching these classes at the BS level anymore, something will need to be done differently. Personally, I think we should go back to teaching these at the BS level.

When I was in school, some classmates stayed on to get their MS. Several years later, they thought it was a waste of time. I got a 2 year head start on them with experience and they were never able to catch up.

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

(OP)
This is a great thread, people are having an intelligent conversation about something that really matters to their lives. Thank you for not flaming me or my original post.

I. I have an interesting point to reiterate based on hawkaz's post. Hawkaz stated that he was able to take several courses in the 80s, such as as Advanced Steel and Concrete Design, or Advanced Earthquake design, in the 80s as part of his BS. I don't understand how this was possible back then. If people can shed some light on this, I'm really open and curious.

Here is what I originally wrote:

"When I speak to some of the older engineers from the 50s and 60s; honestly, their education does not sound as difficult. On paper they had more credit hours, but in terms of actual work, their life seemed easier. This is anecdotal, but many of them did not seem to have needed as much calculus as us, maybe 2-3 levels maximum; and their load just seemed easier. It was definitely also a lot easier to get into a good school back then.

I really believe we are comparing apples to oranges when we compare these engineering degrees that required 140 hours plus with our load today. Something does not add up; because there is no way you could cram more classes into my schedule. It's almost insulting when I read these comments, because I remember how I had no life, was absorbed 24/7 in my studying just to keep up...and then I read an article talking about how I didn't have enough hours in my degree."

To add to that, I came in with AP credits and took maybe one or two general educational courses. There was no way, unless you were a workaholic and a genius, for you to jam any more engineering courses into a 4 year pipeline without removing physics, math, chemistry, or solid mechanics courses. Sure, there were those bright students, who went to the A+ large high schools in suburbs somewhere; and they had taken two levels of Calculus, Physics, etc... and they could, theoretically, get their MS in 4 years....but those people were the exception. Again, I don't see how people in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, were able to take all these advanced, graduate level courses, in their undergraduate studies.

II. I plan on getting an MS in structural engineering and think it will be valuable.

My most important point is free will, free decision making, and a truly free market.

I don't want guildism, coercion, market distortion, and overall educational inflation; where pretty soon everyone will have a "college degree".

III. IRStuff, I agree with you man. The last couple of years, I go to the doctor, and I deal with a Nurse Practitioner. I got not problems with NPs, they're fine, and I'm sure they are way cheaper...but what we've really done, is put a band aid on the bigger cost problem. I'm sure if we had a freer market, with less requirements for that Doctor to be a doctor, i.e. no need for a bachelor's prior to medical school; the way it is in most of the world, where medical school is a 6 year integral program, costs would go down. That's one thing among many that keeps costs high in the US versus other countries...even though the health outcomes are the same in many cases.

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

Sidebar - not sure where your 6 year without bachelors comes from genda, in the UK if you go straight to med school from 'high school' then it's a 5 year course - unless you take an extra year to get a bachelors as well. At least that was the case back in late 90's when I had friends studying medicine.

Posting guidelines FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm? (probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

The typical US medical school path is 4 yr pre-med ending with something like a BA-Bio, followed by 4 yr medical school. followed by a minimum of 3 yr residency, for Family Practice. Even with a 5-yr combo college/medical school, there's still a minimum of 3 yrs of residency. Other disciplines like Surgery can extend residency out to 7 yr, which puts someone at age 32 before they're no longer in a teaching hospital environment.

TTFN
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers


Of course I can. I can do anything. I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
There is a homework forum hosted by engineering.com: http://www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

There's simply no way you'd get to what I consider advanced concrete design in a four year degree. Similarly with advanced earthquake analysis. At the same time, someone with a thesis based masters is not going to have covered these to a sufficient extent and is going to need a lot of experience under a senior engineer and read up on the subject to be able to execute these properly. There is no substitute for experience.

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

(OP)
Kenat, I believe that in some Eastern European countries and definitely Vietnam, medical school is 6 years without any pre-BS degree. Just some knowledge I know from people that went to medical school there.

Of course, these countries also have specializations and years of residency as well, with some specializations taking a great deal of time.

/

canwesteng, good point on the thesis based masters. If you take that option, you have even less classes to get all your advanced courses.

/

Still, what I'm really curious about is an older engineer's perspective who went through school in the 60s or 70s. I just want to know how they could take significantly more classes than we do today.

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

The US might be different; there are those of the conspiracy bent that think that purpose of the entire chain of college, medical school, and residency is to limit the number of qualified doctors. Certainly, the typical college degree used for pre-med is not necessarily that relevant to the medical degree itself.

TTFN
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers


Of course I can. I can do anything. I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
There is a homework forum hosted by engineering.com: http://www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

gendna2, How many credit hours are required for graduation these days? It was 140 at a prominent midwest school in the 80s. I have heard 128 now- is that accurate?
We also had minimal liberal arts requirements, no physical education requirements, minimal rhetoric... Heavy emphasis on our majors.

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

Well, that may not mean much.. My alma mater recently caved to pressure and brought the number of credits required back to 139.5

They did this by reducing the value of lab courses, instead of removing any.

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

Hawkaz, as of 2008 it was 128 credit hours at the University of Michigan. Attached is the sample schedule.

Of the 128 credit hours that are required for a degree they are broken down as follows:
All program requirements: 55hr
Advanced math: 7hr
Technical Core Subjects: 18hr
Program Subjects: 28hr
Technical Electives: 9hr

From my experience, noted above, this schedule does not provide the student with adequate knowledge when starting a career post baccalaureate. It would seem that a masters would be a great idea. However, requiring a masters is a tricky matter. First it costs a lot of money. Second, it can delay entry into the workforce. Third, it can be essentially an admission that the bachelors curriculum is simply not good enough. In order to save time and money it would seem that the ideal thing to do would be to revise the curriculum. "Raising the bar" to a masters seems like special interests in education getting the money they want.

Here is what I would do for the Civil Engineering Degree.
All program requirements: (Free up 20 credits)
1. Rename to Technical Core Subjects
2. Cut the humanities and social sciences out completely +16 credits.
3. Eliminate Engineering 101 (Computer programming) + 4 credits
Advanced Mathematics: (7 hours - Leave as is)
Technical Core Subjects: (18 hours - Leave as is)
Program Subjects: (28 hours - Leave as is)
Technical Electives: (18 hours - Add +9 Credits)
1. Declare concentration and have 4 required technical electives for that concentrations = 12 credits.
2. Two courses (6 credits) are left for the student to choose from the other concentration's electives.
General Electives: (11 hours)
1. This could be anything.

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

I kind of wonder how this will play out in my field ,power, where probably 90%+ of the people I have worked with that have graduate degrees have H-1Bs or some other immigrant classification. Most of those immigrants I suspect get graduate level degrees not because they are needed for most positions but because it helps with finding companies that will sponsor them.

That said I can readily tell when I work with people who has a very solid power education that from a school that had a good undergrad or graduate power program and who has had to pick up everything on the job but I don't think graduate work should be a requirement. There is a huge shortage of power engineers as it is, increasing the requirements for superficial reasons doesn't benefit anyone.

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

(OP)
hawkaz,

I checked my school, and the number of required credits is 128. When I graduated, I had over 140.

Here is a breakdown:

-4 core CE courses in your primary are of emphasis (RC Design*, Steel Design*, Integrated Structural Design*, Advanced Structural Analysis, i.e. matrix analysis)
-2 CE courses in secondary area of emphasis (Highway Design*, i.e. mostly the geometric aspects, Railroad Track Design*)
-5 breadth CE courses (Structural, Transportation, Geotechnical, Engineering Surveying, Construction Materials)
-4 Mechanics Courses: Statics, Solid Mechanics, Dynamics, Hydraulics
-7 Match Courses: Calculus I, II, III, Differential Equations, Matrix Theory, Engineering Statistics, Engineering Economics and Optimization
-4 Physics Courses: Newtonian, Electro-Magnetic, Quanthum, Thermo
-2 Chemistry Courses:
-1 Engineering Graphics Course (very difficult course, crammed ridiculous amounts of information into the course), 1 CS course (also very difficult due to cramming)

Chemistry, Hydraulics, Materials Engineering, and maybe Physics were 4 hour courses because they had a lab; but 3 of the above courses were only 2 hours, so let's say each course was 3 hours for simplicity. The courses with a star had a large design project at the end. Overall, this equals about 90 hours.

On top of this I took:
-AAS in Land Surveying Technology, CAD Certificate (very good program, dove deep into plan reading, drafting, and spent a lot of time in the field surveying)
-RC II, Construction Management Cost Accounting, Wood Design
-AP courses for most of my humanities and general education requirements
-Business Writing, which was a very good course

Conclusion: Disagree on removing humanities requirements, but agree on making them remedial, i.e. if you have to take them during the regular semesters, it'll bump your time in college to 4.5 years. I am appalled at the overall lack of cultural, historic, and english knowledge that many "university" graduates have these days. That being said, throwing courses at them is not the answer; making them re-mediate in the key concepts of American history, European history, and English is important.

I would re-move my college's politically correct insistence on a non-western humanity; or a foreign language. I'd also get rid of computer programming, it was a painful waste of time. I wish I could have taken the business computer programming which taught them to program with excel; mine tried to cram C, Unix, and Matlab into one course....it was awful.

Finally, the "3 hour" courses I took seemed to be 3 hours in name only; they behaved more like 4 courses. Just something to think about.

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

2
(OP)
I read an article debating the SE license in the US in the April issue of Civil Engineering. It was no debate at all, cleverly lop-sided towards the SE license. The funny thing is that at the end of the magazine, there was another article where the Supreme Court told dentists in North Carolina that they can't ban tooth whitening services using their State Board. So I wrote the following to the editor of the magazine, which by the way, I think is a great magazine and meant to be a little funny.

Regarding “Structural Engineering and Licensure”,

Adam Smith wrote in his Wealth of Nations that “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”
How fitting that this issue of ASCE has the Supreme Court of the land striking down at least one minor anti-free market move of a state licensing board.

I applaud that decision, and think we need more like that. To give you a corollary, civilians are ultimately in charge of the military; elected civilians. So yes, politicians, that dirty P word, should ultimately be in charge of engineers too. We are not the deciders in chief, we just set up the risk decision matrix, and elected officials make the risk decisions. Of course, if we skew the matrix, and shout that the sky is falling because “we’re using computer programs we can’t understand” and a “parking garage collapsed”, then we’ll skew the decision as well.

There are many good reasons why politicians should be in charge of licensing. Adam Smith knew that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Engineers don’t get together and think about how to squeeze money out of the taxpayer, but if the types of engineers who are PhDs, heads of companies, etc…call it the 1% of engineers, made the laws, we’d be taking 32 hour exams and needing a PhD to design a skyscraper. Among the myriad of other regulations that businesses must bear in this country, this would certainly count as a “contrivance to raise prices.”

I believe that the “S.E. Debate” article is no debate at all, it is a very biased and skewed article, skewed towards spreading the SE license across the USA. The only organization against the move, NSPE, has each individual concern rebuffed in the article in a matter of fact, we thought about that already, kind of manner. The article basically says, “don’t worry folks, spreading the SE license everywhere won’t be as bad as you think.”

First, be prepared to dismantle ASCE and Civil Engineer magazine in the next 20 to 30 years. Structural Engineers consider themselves SEs first, so you might as well begin by taking out the structural articles from Civil Engineering, since the field is becoming so complex and specialized, that an SE won’t really care what an engineer designing roads and drainage does….they never do it anyway.

Second, be prepared for a Geothechnical License. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicoll_Highway_collap...
The Niccoll Highway Collapse in Singapore killed 4, injured 3, did millions of damage, and was a lot worse than a parking garage collapsing in Florida. If the foundation fails, the retaining wall fails, the tunnel collapses…that’s just as bad as a structural engineer’s failure. Not to mention the practicality of SE licensing bleeding into a project like the Big Dig, who can stamp that one? 50 states will make that decision 50 different ways.

The PE Exam is too easy, right? It’s far too easy for today’s unintelligible computer algorithms, and we deeply care about protecting the public. Next step, Geotechnical License; I’ll be the first to lobby for this one.

For that matter, let’s have a Transportation License too. If the curve is improperly designed, and cars crash, people will die too. How about a Computer Science License for programs that affect the public. If the flight controls fail, or AutoCAD is wrong, we could kill a lot of people.

The above are examples of the obvious false logic behind the SE license, which I strongly hope is brought to a Republican controlled Supreme Court and struck down, nation-wide.

Here is the more pernicious false logic, the one that the average layman would have trouble comprehending. Your article quotes Mr. Hudson, an S.E. advocate who says that he thinks he could have been a true civil engineer in 1982, i.e. practicing in multiple fields, but he can’t anymore because the IBC went from 1.5 inches thick to 2.5 inches, with “larger pages” that reference “a bookshelf of other standards.”

It’s the same people, with no political oversight, that blew up our codes, and now, are clamoring for “raising the bar” and adding the SE. Instead of fixing the root cause of the problem, which are out of control design codes, ASCE advocates for essentially splintering the profession via a 16 hour exam on top of the PE. Maybe we had a happy medium in code writing sometime in the early 90s, but now it is out of control, because the 1% of civil engineers…. sorry, I meant to say structural engineers, control the code writing process.

We built the Hoover Dam, Empire State Building, Golden Gate Bridge, Grand Coulee Dam, Panama Canal, without the large ASCE Minimum Design Load references, the AASHTO LRFD industrial door weight, or an IBC that is racing in size against the AASHTO standard. Of course, we also designed those structures with men who only had a Bachelor’s Degree and a simple PE, if that. Back in those days, they had a free market which accepted slightly more risk, for vastly more freedom. Mistakes happened and will happen, people died, people went to jail, businesses went bankrupt, and guilds, I mean professional societies, outside of highly corrupt states like Illinois, couldn’t lobby for 16 hour exams so we can do the “right thing” and ensure that for any structure, we need a MS, PE, SE, GE to design the thing.

Lest we forget that young engineers today have to take highly competitive SATs (that’s the SAT I and also two to three SAT IIs = 6HRs) to get into college, where they’re competing against foreign students too, then the FE (8HRs), then a GRE (4 HRs) for the masters, then a PE(8HRs), and now, to further increase public safety, the SE(16HRs). I’ll make sure to let kids know about that when they’re considering STEM versus finance or law.

She may be having fun building a popsicle stick bridge, but we’ll see what Suzy thinks when I show her a real life AASHTO LRFD design guide and take 34 hours of examinations to build the real bridge. Oh, this is on top of the exams in engineering school, and her AP Exams, forgot those.

Maybe she’ll ask if she can use the structurally sound AASHTO design guide to physically bridge the gap instead of a popsicle stick bridge, after all, there’s a few SEs and PHds that worked on that design guide…

Hope you found the sarcasm funny,
But I do believe the SE is another step in the wrong direction for civil engineering,
#########

P.S. I wouldn’t use the great state of Illinois as an example of anything, including the SE license. If you dig a little into the true origin of the SE license in Illinois, it’s got nothing to do with protecting the public; it was just a turf war, the conspiratorial stuff Adam Smith talked about.

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

As someone who supports the SE license I"m going to star your post. It's well thought out and well reasoned. Enjoyed reading it.

I'll agree on many points, as well. I agree with these for sure:

Quote (gendna2)

It was no debate at all, cleverly lop-sided towards the SE license.

Quote (gendna2)

Instead of fixing the root cause of the problem, which are out of control design codes, ASCE advocates for essentially splintering the profession via a 16 hour exam on top of the PE.

Quote (gendna2)

I’ll make sure to let kids know about that when they’re considering STEM versus finance or law.

Maine Professional and Structural Engineer. www.fepc.us

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

My signature says it all.

If you dont see how it fits this, hopefully your whool is more valuable to the shepherd than your meat is

"Formal education is a weapon, whose effect depends on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed." ~ Joseph Stalin

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

You Civil Engineers have an insider's perspective and the most at stake here. If you want new blood to come into the talent pool, you better straighten this mess out asap. When I was in school, I got a little taste of how much of a death grip government has on all facets of civil engineering. It drove me away from it pretty quickly. I am glad that I caught on FAST, because my end goal for my formal education was to get a BS in civil engineering and then get a PE. By the time I got there, id probably have to get a PHD just to be on a survey crew!!

"Formal education is a weapon, whose effect depends on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed." ~ Joseph Stalin

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

"By the time I got there, id probably have to get a PHD just to be on a survey crew!!"

We'll have to see how that goes, but certainly for some other professions, the exact opposite is true. I know PEs often lament how much better off doctors are in the US, but the reality is quite different. Engineers complain about Rug and Sanitation "Doctors," but medical doctors are now having to contend with splitting their work load with nurse practitioners and physicians' assistants, who are getting paid significantly less than the doctors. So, the medical associations have been fighting this trend, but have been on the losing end, because the hospitals and insurance companies have more money and want see costs go down. Oh, and just recently, pharmacists have been lobbying to write prescriptions, further eroding the MD's customer base, but that might be a good thing, since it's likely that those patients won't have the fee for service insurance.

I would imagine that something similar is going to happen with this situation, but I'm just not certain where all the money resides, since large construction companies who you'd think have the money have both engineering and construction, so they may have an internal conflict of interest.

TTFN
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies
[IMG http://tinyurl.com/7ofakss]
Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers


Of course I can. I can do anything. I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
There is a homework forum hosted by engineering.com: http://www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

@Panther140,

No offense, but you were still in school as of last October at least. Or at least, you were starting threads here saying you're an Engineering Tech student this past October.

I appreciate a variety of insights and perspectives from a large variety of backgrounds and experiences but I think the topic is a keenly professional one. I find it odd that you're insinuating the Stalinesque power of a formal education but you're in a 2 year civil engineering tech program that won't end in a BSc.

I don't think I understand what your point is.

_________________________________________
NX8.0, Solidworks 2014, AutoCAD, Enovia V5

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

Jnieman -- End goal for my education was to get a BS in civil engineering because I could then get a PE. I was trying to get out of the formal education system as fast as possible, get a job making a living wage, gain relevant experience, and then return to school when my motivation to get a BS overcomes my strong desire to not be in school.

"Formal education is a weapon, whose effect depends on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed." ~ Joseph Stalin

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

The thought of states/commonwealths implementing "raise the bar" makes me sad for the middle class (my assumption of most structural engineers). The money spent on a masters degree could handily be absorbed into undergraduate degrees (as others have mentioned) when the extraneous courses are removed and substituted for traditional graduate-level engineer courses.

Some economic ranting:
If MS requirements are implemented, I expect that many families will be faced with postponing home purchasing because they are being required to obtain a masters degree (there goes your down-payment!). The statistics are clear on affordable home purchasing and its positive affects on the economy - conversely, we have all seen what happens when people buy homes who can't sustainably afford to do so. Heaven forbid your spouse has a profession with the same requirements.

Some ranting about expectations:
The 3-tier structural engineering degree system is unnecessary. Provide one 125-credit (plus or minus) structural engineering degree and the option to pursue the heavy philosophical/theoretical PhD. "Raise the bar" on universities filling the heads of engineers with wasteful courses, not the engineer will be undoubtedly will be busting his/her hump to keep up with ever stagnant wages, fee percentages, increasing fast-tracking, all with assurance that we will provide flawless work 100% of the time.

More ranting....
I am sure many on this site have wives or husbands who are public school teachers; they are already under the same pressure as our profession. My wife (English teacher) has been forced into a masters degree, but continues to be paid the same as she did without the masters. Same will occur in the structural engineer profession. Most employers do not value (in terms of money) masters degrees. Why? Because they see no appreciable increase in risk the knowledge obtained from a BS. Everything is so prescriptive anyways!

ASCE = Big $:
ASCE has this topic all wrong. The real and current risk to human life (due to structural failure) is because of lack of maintenance by owners and poor construction due to hurried construction schedules. And if there was a problem with engineering knowledge by practicing engineer, they are taking the easiest way out by imposing the change on individuals. What else can we do but yell and scream about it? Passionately and logically defending yourself is worth a nickle for every real dollar someone else has to shut you up.

A different perspective on my ranting:
Personally, I would push through and finish my masters if this day comes. I do not know how to be anything other than an engineer, and leaving the profession would likely cause more harm to the stability of my family than to oblige the masters degree requirement.

I will end with this "formula".
BS + Quality Experience = BS + MS + Quality Experience

"It is imperative Cunth doesn't get his hands on those codes."

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

There are ABET accredited 2 year schools where I am at in Wisconsin. Wisconsin also says you can get a PE if you go to an ABET tech school. They are approved by ABET's TAC. So in theory, I could get a PE with a tech degree here, couldn't I?

"Formal education is a weapon, whose effect depends on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed." ~ Joseph Stalin

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

"My signature says it all.

If you dont see how it fits this, hopefully your whool is more valuable to the shepherd than your meat is
"Formal education is a weapon, whose effect depends on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed." ~ Joseph Stalin "

Panther140, I don't have much of a dog in this fight because I am not a PE, nor will I foreseeably ever be in the position where I am striving to acquire one. However, I'm not sure that I want to live downstream of a dam being built by intellectual Bolsheviks.

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

Are you implying that formal education and learning are completely codependent? I don't see how you could draw that conclusion with the amount of extremely intellectual people that detest formal education systems. Pretty much any idea that aligns with what you posted above are null and void when posting on the internet, given the history of this invention.

Back on subject:
MacGruber, the part that I am not clear on is the requirements for the FE exam would work in that case. It says that you have to be at least a senior in a BS program to take it.

"Formal education is a weapon, whose effect depends on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed." ~ Joseph Stalin

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

"Are you implying that formal education and learning are completely codependent?"

Not at all. It's all about being able to present your credentials/ability/intelligence in a credible and well accepted format. You could be the smartest guy in the world, but how are you going to convince someone of it? Are they going to take a chance on you if you didn't even have the ambition to attend uni or get the higher education? It's all politics and marketing. And economics, as Weldstan pointed out.

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

theonlynamenottaken, you are exactly right on all accounts

"Formal education is a weapon, whose effect depends on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed." ~ Joseph Stalin

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

Panther, I don't know. Why don't you contact your licensing board and ask. They are the people you need to satisfy anyways.

"It is imperative Cunth doesn't get his hands on those codes."

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

"ornerynorsk (Industrial)24 Jun 15 13:16

Not at all. It's all about being able to present your credentials/ability/intelligence in a credible and well accepted format. You could be the smartest guy in the world, but 1-how are you going to convince someone of it? 2-Are they going to take a chance on you if you didn't even have the ambition to attend uni or 2.5-get the higher education? It's all politics and marketing. And 3- economics, as Weldstan pointed out"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Im going to answer the underlined concerns in order below.

1- I took an aptitude test that my employer administered and answered questions that extensively probed my technical knowledge. Also, the smartest guy in the world could probably find an alternative method if he wanted to.

2- The educational content at universities does not align with my ambitions.

2.5- I am getting more and more educated every day at work. The education I am getting is also significantly more useful to my employer and myself than anything a tenured teacher-zilla would be teaching me right now.

3- Economics! I'm glad you brought that up. Lets consider opportunity cost, competition, return on investment, current prospects, and how it relates to my plan before we get to questions like number 2.

"Formal education is a weapon, whose effect depends on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed." ~ Joseph Stalin

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

Interesting to note is that the Maine PE board recently took a stance against Raise the Bar (not by name) and similar initiatives in their newsletter.

Maine Professional and Structural Engineer.

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

All fine and dandy, what if the employer is a startup, very small organization, etc, and is not qualified to qualify the candidate? This is often the case when younger/smaller organizations begin to push the boundaries of their own expertise, and subsequently seek to employ technically upward.

Panther 140, I do hear where you're coming from. I'm getting very close to retirement, but if I had it to do over again, I would have taken my education to the highest level practicable. Now understand something, I started the hard way, much like you describe. I do not have a degree . . . in anything! I have a tech school certificate, and many, many years of widely varying experience in many different facets of manufacturing, metallurgy, business development, and R&D. I am currently head of an engineering department at a medical device OEM, have been for a decade, but having no credentials, I do not sign off or certify critical matters . . . ever. We have engineers for that. It is exclusively my experience that landed me the position.

When I was fresh out of school, full of piss and vinegar, I talked a local banker into lending me enough to start a machining/fabricating shop. Mind you, I'd had 4 to 5 years work experience in the shop environment by this time, so formulating the business plan and marketing angle wasn't too much of a stretch. Failed spectacularly 13 months into it. Good experience, one learns more from mistakes than successes. In the ensuing decades, I've owned numbers of additional (successful) businesses, and have worked for a dozen or more companies, from a mom-and-pop to a multi-billion dollar telecommunications hardware OEM. My expertise is tool & die, but I have extensive experience in medical device, defense (Mark 45 5 inch Naval gun project), small caliber arms R&D, miniature fluid power, and restaurant/bar ownership, believe it or not. I've done extensive business on 3 continents, including the former Soviet Union.

What's the point of all of this? Had I gone the traditional route of higher education, for which I then had a distaste similar to yours, I would have been retired 10 years ago with a lot more money in the bank, with greater accomplishments under my belt, able to pursue my bucket list of a million interests much more proficiently and well-funded than I currently am able. . . . as the clock continues to tick.

You can absolutely make it the hard way, if you've got the fight and determination to swim against the current, fighting the rapids and dodging the occasional bear, sure it can be done. You mentioned ROI. And you mention that "formal education is a weapon". A person like yourself who is obviously not hesitant about a good challenge can do wonders by "arming" themselves and see a tremendous return on the investment over the course of a lifetime. Not to give advice, just offering a little perspective from someone who has done it the hard way, and not afraid to admit it.

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

I would like to add by saying times are extremely different than when ornerynorsk and others of that generation crafted their experience. The current pace of engineering revolves around the constant desire to optimize time and money as facilitated by modern computing power. I find it to be even more crucial now than ever before for engineers to have a deep understanding of theory of structures, classical and modern numerical methods (as an example for structural people). Among many other things, so much of our time is spent modeling in software and reviewing output to ensure reasonable results. Engineering technicians and even many engineers (without proper experience) will tend to rely on the software being accurate (because they do not know otherwise). And, until I am dead in my grave, will I ever implicitly trust software to be correct.

My "1984" is a room full of technicians operating software that combines "automated" BIM and engineering analysis...no thank you.

"It is imperative Cunth doesn't get his hands on those codes."

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

Agreeing with macgruber...
I find the primary lesson I try to inculcate to my multiple newly minted BS engineering EITs, is, don't trust the little number that the nice computer program said is, "OK".

RE: Protesting ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative

Absolutely right, MacGruber22. Experience is important, but the fundamentals gained in a formal education provide a solid foundation to build upon. Good apprenticeship/internship/mentorship come into play, as well.

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources