×
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

Master's First, Then PE License
17

Master's First, Then PE License

Master's First, Then PE License

(OP)

ASCE is proposing a revision to the licensing process. They want engineers to get master's degrees before being allowed to get PE Licenses. How do the readers of this forum feel about this?

RE: Master's First, Then PE License

I think its a bunch of hooey. Is the ASCE a civil or chemical engineering society or something else? Do they give their reasoning as to what issues this will solve or any reference as to why this is coming about?

RE: Master's First, Then PE License

That is the path I took, but I wouldn't recommend it.  Graduate school is mostly pointless mathmatics with zero real world influence.  I like arithmetic so I found it fun (yes, Virginia, I am a sick puppy), but it has nothing to do with my Engineering Practice and added nothing to by ability to pass the PE.  The math on the PE is much closer to algebra than esoteric solutions to obscure partial differential equations.

I looked up ASCE on Google, and it is Civil.  Maybe they are getting so specialized in that field that the Masters is common to differentiate a dam guy from a road guy from a soils guy.  If they're seriously proposing needing a Masters for all PE's someone needs to speak for other disciplines.

David

RE: Master's First, Then PE License

That is quite ridiculous,in general, for engineers. I know many engineers who rarely use anything from their third year at university.

My third year papers were:

Analysis of structures using partial differentials (plate bending and so on)

Useful insights, but no direct use in my career so far

Design of reinforced concrete structures

Helpful when designing composite structures but again, no direct use

Mechanics of Prime movers

The theoretical foundation of my career.

Surveying

No use whatever. I did it because it is easy, fun, and a certain young lady was going to do it.

So I use about a 1/4-1/2 of my final year topics, and would guess that that is an usually high proportion.

So what is the probability that the average engineer would ever use his Masters?

On the other hand this could be a ploy to (a) restrict numbers and (b) boost the profitability of universities.

The counter argument is that more time at university would give a better foundation. I think you could get much the same effect by chopping out the quite ridiculous level of maths that is taught. I have heard it said that in Australia an engineer does about 3/4 of the maths required for a maths degree.

Cheers

Greg Locock

RE: Master's First, Then PE License

ASCE's official policy statement (with "Issues" and "Rationale") on "Academic Prerequisites for Licensure and Professional Practice" can be found at:

http://www.asce.org/pressroom/news/policy_details.cfm?hdlid=15

Note that ASCE is a professional organization (not a governing body) for civil engineers, and can only "support" and "encourage" employers, organizations, etc in this practice.  ASCE is not affiliated with the State PE Licensing Boards and cannot mandate such a change.

A main issue is the diversification and specialization of some "sub-fields" of civil engineering (environmental, geotechnical, etc).  The specialized knowledge (arguably) required for practice in these fields cannot be taught at the undergraduate level.  I'm not sure this is ASCE's main motivation, however, since fields have effectively policed themselves quite well--firms are just reluctant to hire without an advanced degree (e.g., geotechnical engineering--it is currently very difficult to practice without having an MSCE).

Whether the extra post-graduate education is "worth it" is probably a matter of chosen field and type of practice.  My post-graduate education in civil and geotechnical engineering has been invaluable, but I certainly understand how it may not be as valuable to others practicing in different disciplines, or in other positions.

RE: Master's First, Then PE License

The return on investment for a MS is not worth it.  I have not seen engineers with a MS significantly paid more than BS engineers.  I would jump on a MS in a heartbeat if I felt it would significantly help me, can't see it though.  It appears that the people proposing this are academics who want more business.  All the esoteric schooling is not as good as the experience of being there doing the job and this is recognized by the people signing checks.

RE: Master's First, Then PE License

I have 7 years experience with PE license. I started back last year to get a masters, and was very disappointed. I was spending all my time drawing graphs and writing mathcad sheets for homework. It has been so impractical so far that I do not believe it will be much help to me where I currently work nor anywhere I worked before. I am not sure I am going back.

The extra money for getting a masters in my field and in my area is not there either. Some companies require it, I am not sure why. I know some engineers with a masters degree that aren't nearly as good as some I know without one.

RE: Master's First, Then PE License

My undergrad was in chemical engineering and I am currently working on my masters in environmental engineering.  While my experiences may be the exception rather than the rule, I have found very little of my classwork to be esoteric or full of pointless mathmatics.  In fact, nearly all of my professors have tried to focus on current industry practices (with theoretical explanations for the "why").

That being said, I really think a masters pre-requisite for the PE is utter nonsense.  There are PLENTY of sound engineers out there who have years of experience in their field, but don't have a masters.  Could the ASCE just be thinking of ways to elevate the prestiege of the PE (just speculating... I didn't read the article)?

RE: Master's First, Then PE License

2
Truth be told, it doesn't really matter.  The PE means so little in this country, since most engineering is done under industry exemption.  If they raise that bar, it will only serve to decrease the number of PE's and further reduce their value.

I have my PE even though I don't really need it to do my job.  I don't have a masters and doubt I'd ever consider a master's in engineering.  If I'd had to get a masters to get my PE, I'm pretty sure I'd never get one.

Edward L. Klein
Pipe Stress Engineer
Houston, Texas

All opinions expressed here are my own and not my company's.

RE: Master's First, Then PE License

5
Actually, Civils do quite a bit of work that is not under any exemption. Some states require engineering firms to be owned by PE's.
I have read much of ASCE's position on this issue. The theroy is that if engineers were to require an advanced degree as doctors & lawyers do now, our status and paychecks would rise to similar levels.
I don't support this logic. First the reasons that doctors and lawyers make a lot of money have little to do with an advanced degree. As far as prestige, I hear a lot more lawyer jokes than engineer jokes.
Finally the important part of the doctor or lawyer trainig that ASCE overlooks is the apprenticeship. Residency for doctors, clerking for lawyers. It is a structured post graduate training program. If engineeers had such a program, esp. if the training program took engineers into different aspects of their work, the quality of engineering would improve.
I have known many enginners. Many good ones have no degrees, but a lot of common sense. Many bad ones have master and Docterates, but no common sense.
I also don't think common sense is as common as it used to be.

RE: Master's First, Then PE License

I think eliminating the industrial exemption would go a lot farther than advanced degrees to raising the prestige and value of engineering.  From that, you would then put engineers in a position where advanced degrees and education would be of more value.

Edward L. Klein
Pipe Stress Engineer
Houston, Texas

All opinions expressed here are my own and not my company's.

RE: Master's First, Then PE License

Be careful what you wish for. Releasing a flood of ex exempt PEs on the market when manufacturing takes a downturn may not do much for the bottom line of your nice little monopoly!

Cheers

Greg Locock

RE: Master's First, Then PE License

2
Mr. Locock,
To what monopoly are you referring?  I'm a PE in private practice and have seen nothing that suggests we PEs have a monoploy on anything.  Many non-PEs are employed in my world.  I'd even guess that most engineers in consulting firms are not licensed when first hired.  Most see the value of licensure and obtain it within a few years thereafter though.  In the end it is often a personal choice.  I have noted many engineers that choose not to be licensed, but still work in non-non-exempt roles.

Steve Braune
Tank Industry Consultants
www.tankindustry.com

RE: Master's First, Then PE License

Doesn't your state have a no-compete clause? Doesn't it have artificial barriers to entry?

Many do, even if yours doesn't.

If so, it is a monopoly. Monopolies are not necessarily a bad thing, but they are still monopolies.




 

Cheers

Greg Locock

RE: Master's First, Then PE License

Are you referring to the old requirements in the ethics code to not compete based on fees? The prohibition to not compete on a fee basis disappeared in the 1970s.  Quite a few states now require quality based selection processes in which fees may be considered, but cannot be the prime consideration in selection.  

There are no barriers that I know of regarding submittal of a qualifications statement/proposal.  I trust that you are not referring to the requirement to be licensed as a PE as equal to a barrier to compete for public projects.

Steve Braune
Tank Industry Consultants
www.tankindustry.com

RE: Master's First, Then PE License

(OP)

I'm the person who originally started this thread. Looks like there's a variety of opinions on this topic. My personal belief is that a masters degree can be of help in certain work environments, but not all. I don't however think that a masters should be a prerequisite for PE licensure. I believe that ASCE is hoping to make engineers look more professional, by requiring the masters degree. I don't think that masters degrees or elimination of the industrial exemption will have any effect upon the way the public views (and compensates) engineers. Its basically being caused by supply and demand, not ignorance of the profession. As a side note, I think that elimination of the industrial exemption would only result in corporations having a PE review & stamp their designs for a modest fee. The bulk of the work would still be done by unlicensed persons. Whether you look at industry or consulting (exempt vs. non-exempt) the vast majority of engineering is being done by unlicensed persons. The state laws only regulate who can call themselves engineers, not who can do engineering. The majority of the engineering that is being done in the consulting firms that I worked for is being done by unlicensed persons, regardless of title. As far as the comparison to doctors, I think that many folks are misinformed about the current state of the medical profession. Medicine is no longer the lucrative profession that it was a generation ago. HMOs and managed care destroyed the income potential that doctors used to have. The old timers just want to stretch their careers to retirement. The new doctors are wondering how they are ever going to pay off their debts. I know many doctors, young and old. Their gripes sound exactly like the ones we engineers have. The fact is, its a terrible time in US history to be a worker of any kind.

RE: Master's First, Then PE License

"The fact is, its a terrible time in US history to be a worker of any kind."

I completely disagree with the above statement.  I'm a design engineer (no masters degree, no PE) in a small company and I don't think I've ever been as busy as I've been over the last 3 months.  That's in contrast to times in the past where I've had to make work for myself just to occupy the time.

RE: Master's First, Then PE License

I saw the below editorial in an on-line newsletter I received today relative to the above discussion.  (FYI - don't shoot the messenger):


 
 Guidelines for future engineers: What do you think?

By Cathy Bazán-Arias, Ph.D., E.I.T.  
I think that it is the duty of today's professional engineers to review their career paths and to develop guidelines for future professional licensing so that our profession maintains and, if possible, increases its prestige. For this reason, I support initiatives such as the American Society of Civil Engineers' (ASCE) Policy Statement 465 (PS 465).   

As of April 2004, PS 465 reads: "The American Society of Civil Engineers supports the attainment of a Body of Knowledge for entry into the practice of civil engineering at the professional level. This would be accomplished through the adoption of appropriate engineering education and experience requirements as a prerequisite for licensure." The document targets future generations of civil engineers, and the ASCE recognizes that full implementation of this policy could require 10 to 20 years. However, I think the spirit of PS 465 affects the engineers of today in all fields.

The Body of Knowledge recommended by PS 465 consists of a combination of a bachelor's degree, and additional education and experience. But what is meant by "additional education?" According to PS 465, additional education refers to "a master's degree or approximately 30 coordinated graduate or upper level undergraduate credits or the equivalent agency/organization/professional society courses providing equal quality and rigor." Appropriate experience is "based upon broad technical and professional practice guidelines that provide sufficient flexibility for a wide range of roles in engineering practice."

Several of my colleagues misinterpret the above to mean that a master's degree should be required for licensing. This is not the case. PS 465 states that engineers should achieve a level of expertise in the depth and breadth of their profession to become licensed. This likely will require a combination of education beyond a bachelor's degree and practical experience in the work force.

So, why is more education needed? A bachelor's degree in civil engineering provides a solid foundation that enables graduates to enter the work force and to apply fundamental knowledge to engineering projects. However, some academic institutions opine that "fundamental knowledge" means fewer credit programs with more "focused" classes. Others think that it comprises about 130 credits to cover the breadth (if not depth) of the basic knowledge required for an engineer in 2004. Regardless, there seems to be a consensus that a licensed engineer needs knowledge beyond a four-year degree. If this is true today, what can we expect 20 years from now?   

Change is inevitable and constant. And expanding our existing civil infrastructure in an innovative and economical fashion, dealing with new construction materials, and developing "intelligent equipment" are just some of the challenges for future civil engineers. I believe that current professional engineers have a wealth of experience in dealing with similar challenges. They should examine their own histories and devise and support measures to promote a continued level of excellence in the practice of engineering. What do you think? Please write to me at civilconnection@cenews.com.

 
 

RE: Master's First, Then PE License

I think in most states, one does not need a college degree to become a PE (just many numbers of years of engineering experience to by pass the bachelor requirement).  The ASCE does not even address this issue.  Is the ASCE also trying to get rid of this by pass way of getting the PE?

RE: Master's First, Then PE License

Again, it's the academics that are pushing for more requirements.  I recently, (in the past year), put together my application for PE exam and honestly feel that this was harder than the test.  The experience has to be there and written properly because the state engineering board can see through the fluff.  My state engineering board is very picky and has the reputation of not letting anyone take the PE exam without slam dunk proper credentials.  The state boards should tell ASCE to take a hike because the state boards are already making it harder for entry in to the licensed ranks by their screening process.  Sure they have it on the books that a person can get licensed without college.  In practice, I doubt any board worth it's salt would accept that.

RE: Master's First, Then PE License

SB63,

Wow, your state must be really tough.  But, I have seen on other post on subjects like this one that there are a lot of people out there that got there PE with out a college degree.  It seems to be prevalent.  Why even get a degree when you can just work for a company, work your way into engineering, and then in a number of years take the PE.  I don't see how upping the education has any impact in getting the PE, one does not even need a degree to achieve a PE.

Go Mechanical Engineering
Tobalcane

RE: Master's First, Then PE License

I'm curious to know what states those are.  In looking at the website for Texas, there are requirements to apply for a waiver from the examination, but nothing to get around at least having some kind of college degree, prefereably from an ABET accredited university.  Even the exam waiver process is fairly tough, as you have to have at least 12 years of design/analysis experience and nine references.

Edward L. Klein
Pipe Stress Engineer
Houston, Texas

All opinions expressed here are my own and not my company's.

RE: Master's First, Then PE License

Well here in Massachusetts we have the following regulation:

<<<3.02:   Education and Experience

Acceptable education for registration under the Provisions of M.G.L. c. 112,
§§ 81D through 81T, is defined as a degree from an institution authorized to
grant this degree by the Massachusetts Legislature, a degree in an engineering
curriculum accredited by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and
Technology (ABET), formal education without a degree in curricula as defined
above and a degree from a foreign institution with a curriculum found to be
equivalent by the Board or that has been approved by an agency qualified to
evaluate foreign curricula. The Board may approve other education following
submittal and review of detailed information submitted by the applicant.>>>

I would like to highlight the two sentences “formal education without a degree in curricula as defined above” and “The Board may approve other education following
submittal and review of detailed information submitted by the applicant”.  

This is telling me that you can do the college classes, but not graduate with a degree, just as long the Board approves.

Here is another passage:

<<<(22)   An applicant for registration as a Professional Engineer or Land
Surveyor with 20 years experience as lawful practice in work of a grade and
character indicating competence to practice to the Board, may be registered as
a Professional Engineer or Land Surveyor upon successfully passing an oral or
written examination, provided the applicant is otherwise qualified. The required
examinations shall be as follows:

 (a)   Applicants with accredited degree in engineering or
surveying: Oral Examination.

 (b)   Applicants with accredited degree in technology or related
science:  Modified eight hour written or structured oral
examination.

(c)   Applicants with unaccredited degree or no degree:  Written
eight hour examination or structured oral examination.

(d)   Applicants whose native language is other than
English:  Examinations as specified above and at the discretion of
the Board an examination to demonstrate proficiency in the
English language.>>>

As you can see in (c) you can still take the exam with no degree, but as I said before after numbers of years of experience.

I’m a proponent of at least having your bachelors to take the PE, but it seems it doesn’t matter.  So what does having a master or master equivalent matter?

Go Mechanical Engineering
Tobalcane

RE: Master's First, Then PE License

The one thing that really burns me up is the "oral exam".  This is code for can't pass the test but have achieved a high position in the state highway department (Virginia) so gimme a PE license because the politicians are embarrassed that less than half the department has a PE license.

RE: Master's First, Then PE License

The value of an MS or MEng depends on the program. My program (structural engineering at the University of Texas) was fantastic. Yes, there were math and formulas and problem sets, and I'm sure I learned something there, but the most valuable lesson I learned was the background information--what those test results on the certifications really mean and how easily they can be made to come out differently, where all those factors and formulas in the codes come from (and how little some of them have to do with actual math), etc.

So much of civil engineering is plugging numbers into formulas, looking stuff up in tables, making sure that the certs match the specs; it's good to have that perspective when it comes time to handle an exception.

But that was just a happy surprise. I really went to school for the additional material covered; I needed more specialized sturctural coursework after a general civil program. I decided to get an MS before looking for a job because I felt I didn't know anything after finishing my BS. Based on that, I'd make an MS mandatory, but that was just my experience. I couldn't imagine being able to do any kind of interesting job with the skills I had at the time. I was hired as the equivalent of a 2nd-year engineering assistant. Would I have been any different a 2nd-year EA had I not gone to school and just done that first year straight out? Impossible to tell.

Hg

RE: Master's First, Then PE License

Here in Manitoba, to get your P.E., one has to do 32 hours of volunteer work over 4 years.  The local P.E. licensing board is more like big brother constantly peering over your shoulder, than assisting in career developement.

Do any other areas force volunteer hours to get your P.E.?

I cannot fathom how being forced to volunteer can develop your engineering skills.  I think that to be a well rounded person, one should learn to take the time to have a happy personal life, with a wife and kids.  Forcing volunteer service is irrelevant to developing a technical career.

RE: Master's First, Then PE License

Volunteer service?  Engineering volunteer service (like reviewing and sealing drawings for Habitat for Humanity), or ladling unsigned and unsealed soup at a homeless shelter?

Hg

RE: Master's First, Then PE License

Volunteer service -
Technical service examples:
writing technical papers for publication
technical presentation at a technical event
serve on some board
mentor a student

(some of these might have merrit for some, I suppose, but absolutly nothing to do with my career goals or current employment, nor will it improve my current skill list.  Most of my job function is considered company secret and not for public disclosure due to the competition)

Communtity service examples:
big brothers
organizing charity events
managing plays/theater
operate a cultural or religious event

So basically, its ok to take an orfan kid to the mall for an ice cream, while you leave your wife and kids home for the day, and this supposedly makes you a better engineer.

Basic labor, such as dishing out soup at the local soup kitchen is not acceptable.  I thought I could just pass the time and get the credit for walking along the road, picking up beercans, but not allowed.

RE: Master's First, Then PE License

I don't think a Master's should be required to get registered. Maybe they should ask for more work experience?  I have learned a lot more on the job than at school.

RE: Master's First, Then PE License

The MS requirement is absurd.  Historically, a MS is a consolation prize for people who drop out of PhD programs.  It is a research degree.  Why do you need to be able to do research to do most engineering.  I would have more faith in an engineer with experience doing engineering than a newly minted researcher with no experience doing engineering. Really, show of hands, how many here have actually, usefully, practically, solved a system of ordinary differential equations.  OK, for those who raise your hand, what about a system of partial differential equations.  A BS includes more academic info than any real normal engineering job requires.  I would understand raising experience requirements, but needing a Masters, thats kind of crazy.    Professors must have come up with this one to get more grad students to deal with the declining enrollments of foreigners.  

Mark

RE: Master's First, Then PE License

I think a lot of states are slowly getting away from experience without degree licensure.  That effort started in the 70's and took this long to even surface under the guise of ABET.  I know many PE's and only know 1 that was granted licensure without a degree and though there will always be a few that can achieve this, this is not the norm and in todays legal world, will be extinct soon if not by us then by lawyers.  

I agree that the MS is hooey as buzzp puts it insofar as a requirement for the PE.  But I also agree with Denoid that change is in the wind.  Tobolcane shares the same opinion as me:  fix the existing laws first, the look to change if it is truely necessary.

BobPE

RE: Master's First, Then PE License

There are also MEng degrees which aren't research-based.

My MS, not that I'm saying one should be mandatory, was pretty practical.  I had to do a hell of a lot more math in my undergrad classes.  What I got from the MS, apart from the research project, was subject matter not covered by my undergraduate civil engineering curriculum (thorough treatment of finite elements, prestressed concrete, two-way slabs, stability), and a pretty good understanding of how those numbers and formulae in the codes got there.  Which is pretty important in my job, since I'm responsible for enforcing those codes, or figuring out what to do if they aren't met, and if all one has is a go/no-go state with no insight into WHY, one can't exercise judgement.

In some fields an MS is a consolation prize for a failed PhD (I have one of those too).  But in others, particularly those where PhDs aren't very common, an MS is a very legitimate primary goal.

Hg

RE: Master's First, Then PE License

To further HgTX's comments...  I'm finishing up my masters in environmental engineering and it has been anything but researched based.  Nearly all of the professors I've had are more interested in teaching things that are common practice in industry (along with the theory behind it).  Of course every university is different...


jproj

RE: Master's First, Then PE License

I think an MS degree is what you make of it.  If you approach those two additional years of graduate study with an attitude that says "I'm wasting two years of my life...why am I even doing this?...I could be out making money now with my BS....I won't learn anything new...etc," then you probably won't get anything good out of it.  I would recommend against it in those cases.

I echo the sentiments of HgTX and jproj as I say my graduate work was also very beneficial, practical, and all around rewarding.  Although it not possible to compare myself now to myself without a graduate degree, and where I would be now, I can say that out of nine interviews I had, I received seven offers.  I know it wasn't my good looks that landed me the offers!  BTW, only about two of those companies were actually looking for someone to fill a position.  The rest of the companies I researched, and decided they would fit what I wanted at that point in time.  I wrote and called them to invite myself down for an interview.

RE: Master's First, Then PE License

I have a masters. I got alot out of the program. Never intended to get a PhD.
Th PE license, although good thing to have, is a measure to simply insure the general public that the engineer who prepared a set of plans has a sufficent comprehesion of engineering and scientific principls to adequately perform the work.
It is not an advanced degree. It is not a substitute for an advanced degree. It is not a recognition of excellence. It is a certification of compitence to perform engineering. To try to make into something else is unfair and unwise.  

RE: Master's First, Then PE License

(OP)

To pass the PE exam (and FE as well), I had to study part time for several months. This studying process increased my knowledge and skills and had the effect of making me a better engineer. This process is similar (although shorter) to the studying and exam taking that one has to undertake to get a master's degree.

RE: Master's First, Then PE License

DRC1:

To make achieving the PE anything else but a measurement of excellence is unwise and unfair in my opinion....For it is not only about stamping plans as you informed us, it is about providing engineering to the public here in the US.  Having an advanced degree is not a substitute for the PE.  Engineers not having the PE hurts our profession, again, in my opinion.

I am all for advancing ones education, but I am practical as well, we need PE's in the US.  I am studying towards my masters and it is quite rewarding personally.  Professionally, I have matured more by having my PE than all my education to date...  

Do you have the opportunity to use your PE in you work environment?  I am not a good public person and hence would never survive a career dealing with the public, but some of my most rewarding work has been from helping that very same public.  My best experiences have been in working with industry to fill the void that industry created with the industry exempt clause.  Working and mentoring engineers in the industrial environment is very rewarding and the results have always been positive.  

So I would argue, the PE, although there is room for improvement, completes the engineer, allowing them to solve all problems for all people.  Anything short of the PE makes for an incomplete engineer that no advanced degree will ever substitute for, in my opinion.  Working to help engineers achieve the PE is working to solve the problem.  

BobPE

RE: Master's First, Then PE License

Quote:

the PE, although there is room for improvement, completes the engineer, allowing them to solve all problems for all people

Whoa!  Surely you don't mean that?  ALL problems?  Sure, there's nothing on my license that says I *can't* go sealing circuit diagrams, but there's that little ethics component that says I better not.  That PE says I can solve some problems for some people all by myself rather than under the supervision of someone else.

This thread is starting to treat PE and MS as either/or.  They're completely independent, and depending on the person and the degree program, the additional education might very well allow that engineer to solve more problems for more people.  And since many states allow the master's work to count as a year of engineering experience, it doesn't even lose one very much time on the path to PE if one chooses to do the school first.

Hg

RE: Master's First, Then PE License

I know PE's who aren't worth their weight in crap, and MS's who are the same, and those with both as well that are the same way.  Requiring an MS may help improve the knowledge level of the future PE or it may not.  It all depends on what kind of people are getting these degrees.  Many PE's out there don't know squat outside of the little pond they work in, and half of those ride through their life on the coat tails of the large safety factor saving their butts.  You can also tell which person was a C student and rode through school with over generous professors and extra credit.  There are way too many engineers out there though with the opinion that knowing something is worthless if they don't use it directly.  That's BS and a bit scary imo.  Even if I don't use my knowledge of stress analysis and solve differential equations daily, understanding those things does help with my overall competence and understanding of what I actually do day to day.  That's the purpose of the MS, to achieve a higher understanding instead of rudimentary basics.  You don't use theory to solve problems of massless elephants skating on frictionless ice, you use theory to understand what you need to do to find the right solution when something comes up that wasn't in the book.  I don't think we can really expect to truly help the industry by adding more requirements but I do believe it would alleviate some issues with incompetence.  If experience is your only teacher how do you know that your grand 100 years of experience don't mean you've been doing it wrong all that time?  This is all my opinion of course and we all know what opinions are like :)

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