Increasing Education Requirements 22

[3doorsdwn]

http://www.ncees.org/news/index.php?release_id=37

Above is a URL to an NCEES release where they discuss a proposal to raise the requirement for licensure to M.S. level. I have to admit I was surprised: I've heard this idea kicked around for Structural Engineers; but this makes it sound like they want to make it mandatory for ALL disciplines. I think that is a bit of a stretch. I have a hard time seeing why this should be required for a HVAC engineer or an electrical engineer.

I also think it isn't a good idea for structural engineers either (and I say that as someone who holds both a Masters and a PE). I don’t understand why any educational reforms cannot be made at the undergraduate level. If not by increasing the hours required, than why not reallocate the hours? If memory serves, as an undergraduate I had dozens of hours of English, Economics, and other non-engineering courses. Why not reallocate these hours into the engineering curriculum if the B.S. is now deemed inadequate?

It really disappoints me that ASCE and NCEES have proposed this idea. I think they (ASCE especially) have fallen for the idea that if you raise the educational requirements you will improve the perception of the engineering business (and thus) gets everyone’s salary higher (it’s not going to happen). Also, they think it’s going to reduce outsourcing by making licensure more difficult. That ignores one of the most critical aspects of outsourcing: many engineers registered here are stamping things designed overseas and (falsely) claiming they “oversaw” its design. If you raise the bar, you will still have the same thing happening (except you will have engineers with a masters degree making the same false claims). Overall, it’s just a bad idea. But that is typical for ASCE.

I can certainly see a company making this a requirement for employment there (based on the work they do); but a (legal) requirement for licensure? No way.

 

[civilperson]

Which batch of engineers has the higher quality, West Coast or Midwest? The experience required to take the PE exam is two years in California with an added seismic section. The SEs in Illinois will not give comity to other midwest engineers. The best that I have found are in Louisiana working on world wide oil refinery projects.

 

[3doorsdwn]

civilperson,

"Which batch of engineers has the higher quality, West Coast or Midwest? The experience required to take the PE exam is two years in California with an added seismic section. The SEs in Illinois will not give comity to other midwest engineers. The best that I have found are in Louisiana working on world wide oil refinery projects."

I'm not sure how an MS plays into that though. In fact the majority of the SE's I know do NOT have a MS.

 

[B16A2]

You're really stretching for an argument when you start to care what Enquirer readers think. We're talking about the perception in the professional world.

EIT, theres no problem with night school (as long as the school's program is worthwhile), the problem is when you push to prevent our profession's progress because you have 3 kids, 2 wives, and 4 dogs and therefore don't have the time. HUGE DIFFERENCE, not sure why you don't see that.

I see where this discussion has gone, and I'm sure it can go on forever. Everyone is going to have their opinion based on their personal experiences. Maybe I'm biased because the local projects I work on have no state enforcement of codes and the structural engineers around here don't seem to care. It's demoralizing when you encounter senior engineers who (for example) have no clue what the period of a structure means, or what punching shear failure is for a flat slab. When I work on projects on the west coast I see a bit more pride in people's work and I'm sure my opinion would be more lax if I worked there full time. So cut me a little slack when I show enthusiasm for more education. I know it wont solve all the problems but something is better than doing nothing.

 

[civilperson]

B16A2 said that there is a wide gap in quality between West Coast engineers vs. Midwest. My question is to him.

 

[3doorsdwn]

I addressed the perception from 2 pov's: the public and professional (you didn't specify which so I addressed both). And neither will be altered by any change in legal requirements.

It's interesting you bring that up (i.e. about senior engineers who don't know what the period of a structure is or punching shear). I hope these guys aren't structural, but it reminds me of the fact that I am currently working with a senior engineer (with decades more experience than I have) that doesn't understand anything about such things as requirements for lateral bracing, magnifying moments for slender reinforced concrete, modeling cracked section properties in an FEA model, the importance of meshing plate elements, etc., etc., ad nauseam. Looks like his MS (from Princeton) didn't pay off eh?

 

[B16A2]

Jurisdiction requirements on the west coast force engineers to know their stuff....and they're punished if they submit ambiguous plans and calcs. Check out california discipline board.

Midwest states take a cursory look at the general notes, and no calc requirements. There's not much governmental push to know your stuff, only the fear of something failing. Illinois is an island in the midwest. Refinery projects are in their own world and are governed to be designed (and paid) well by the oil company juggernaut. Get out into "real" louisiana, and you'll find that some areas didn't even have building departments until Katrina happened.


Like I said, MS is not going to solve EVERY problem. And further, if you know of instances where people are signing overseas designs, then it's your job to report it.

 

[MechEng2005]

B16A2:
"It's not beyond a stretch to say that requiring a MS degree will prevent some of the unethical folks from entering the profession. Typically, they're going to be the people who do the bare minimum, don't fully understand the consequences of their actions, and don't care to learn....the average MS student cant obtain a degree like that. Will there be exceptions? OF COURSE Does it mean BS engineers are worthless sacks o crud? NO, that's the conclusion you're drawing......the objective is to push the profession in a better direction."

Thank you for clarifying that I am not a worthless sack o crud. However, the implication that I am a person that does the bare minimum, don't fully understand the consequences of my actions, and don't care to learn STILL OFFENDS ME! Maybe I am the exception you mentioned or maybe you were referring to civil/structural only, not other disciplines. However, I still suspect that you don't respect me and am offended.

-- MechEng2005

 

[HgTX]

Somehow, when I think engineering, I don't think Princeton.

Hg

Eng-Tips policies: faq731-376

 

[3doorsdwn]

HgTX,

"Somehow, when I think engineering, I don't think Princeton."


Most people don’t. But I can’t think of too many rankings for engineering schools where I haven’t seen them ranked very high. But this guy is an example of what I was talking about: despite his education, he really hasn’t kept up with current design codes or methodology (and overall, he really isn't a great engineer). And that goes back to what I was talking about before: the competency to practice can never be solely reflected by education. In fact some jurisdictions (recognizing this) will license people without BS degrees after X-number of years of experience (assuming they pass the appropriate tests).

 

[B16A2]

So would you rather entertain the idea of a revamped and more stringent CEU system? It'd be difficult to learn a lot of the higher order stuff you get out of a MS, but at least it's still a step in the right direction.

 

[3doorsdwn]

B16A2,

“So would you rather entertain the idea of a revamped and more stringent CEU system? It'd be difficult to learn a lot of the higher order stuff you get out of a MS, but at least it's still a step in the right direction.”

It would depend if the material required would be relevant to that person’s job. I personally would have no problem with a pdh/ceu system that would attempt to keep everyone up to speed on code. But to revamp it to try to give everyone the equivalent of (or even close to) the level of a graduate degree is impractical and unneeded (as I have already pointed out on this thread).

The bottom line is: it is up to the individual to decide what they feel competent enough to seal through both knowledge and experience (and to prepare themselves for that). Saying the knowledge cannot come through self-study (or on the job training) is ludicrous. Furthermore, the idea that a graduate degree could fill any knowledge gap (and automatically make one competent) isn’t true. For example, I took a Prestressed Concrete class in grad school. If somebody brought a precast drawing to me and asked me to seal it: I’d laugh at them. Even if I was asked to check existing members: I’d decline unless I had some guidance from an engineer with practical experience in precast design (with or without a MS). Also, what makes anyone think an MS degree will somehow cover all the alleged gaps anyway? Even though I took the non-thesis option (i.e. 30 hrs of course work; all consisting of structural and Geotechnical classes) I STILL didn’t get a chance to take some coursework relevant to the field (among them advanced concrete and wind). And someone who would write a thesis (typically only requiring 24 hrs coursework) would miss out on even more. So let’s not kid ourselves that the MS is the end all/ cure all to our problems.

 

[B16A2]

I suggest rereading ASCE Policy Statement 465. Your version is completely different than theirs.

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

 

[Lion06]

Expanding on what 3doorsdwn was talking about with the thesis option - The typical BSCE program allows someone to take no more than 3-4 classes in any one discipline. That is one shortcoming. The typical MS program requires 7-8 actual courses if you take the thesis option. This would put the total number of courses that are relevant to your discipline between 10 and 12.

I really feel part of the problem is with ABET requiring that a CE program in which you must demonstrate competence in FOUR disciplines. Why four??? What is so magical about 4? Why not make it 2? Make it 2 and then you can take 6 courses from the 2 disciplines that got the axe and you will add those 6 to the 3-4 that you'd be taking for your actual area of interest to get a grand total of...... tada.... 9-10 courses in the subject area of your choosing. This is virtually on par with the number of courses you would have taken with a MS (within your area of interest).
Honestly, how many structural engineers out there use the water resource engineering or environmental engineering that they had to take? Has it helped you to become a better structural engineer or would it have been better to take a few extra structural courses (maybe an advanced concrete or steel, or a course in wood/masonry, or an advanced analysis course (I know many CE programs don't require this for a BS, mine did but it is a BS ET - go figure).

 

[3doorsdwn]

B16,

"I suggest rereading ASCE Policy Statement 465. Your version is completely different than theirs."


Good. ASCE's rationale for this is highly illogical anyway. One of the reasons they give for this includes: "The diversity of society is challenging our traditional views and increasing our need for improved interpersonal and communications skills." Come again? How exactly will an MS help that? I don't recall taking any communication classes in my program. Here is another one: "Globalization has transcended the historically recognized worldwide geographic boundaries primarily as a result of enhanced communication systems."

My response: What The F@#%??????!!!!!!

 

[B16A2]

Well then, I guess the 20 page report I'm writing with my professor, presenting our findings to the design community, and that will be published is doing nothing for my communication skills.

Most people in my program do research to get everything paid for + stipend, write the thesis, and still take 30 hours of coursework. That's the way I'm headed. Coursework and sitting in the structural PhD defenses has already opened my eyes to a lot of practical subjects not learned in the BS.

By the time BS candidates are done learning the basics of math, physics, chem, materials, dynamics and statics, there isn't much time left to devote to "real" courses. I know there'd be no way I could take more than 4 structural courses because there just wasn't enough time. Taking away gen ed's is not an option because engineers are communication starved as is.

What's illogical is a MS degree holder getting through a structural program without taking any advanced concrete courses. Sounds weird and I question what school would allow such a thing.

 

[Lion06]

You certainly don't need a MS to improve communication skills, take an extra english course in your BS. Additionally, I took the following during my BS (in addition to the typical statics, dynamics, strength of materials, soils, materials, fluid mechanics, etc):
(2) analysis courses - including matrix analysis and energy methods
(2) steel courses
(2) concrete courses
(1) foundation course
(1) course on wind/seismic analysis and learing how to use IBC/ASCE 7 for this
(1) year long (2 full semesters) senior project which integrated almost everything learned in the above 8 courses which required a 1-story building to be almost completely designed and detailed (with the exception of a few topics that were not addressed in the program - e.g. doing the actual diaphragm design)

I know that is more classes than most BSCE programs can offer an undergrad. I was able to take all those courses because I didn't have to take water resources, traffic engineering, or environmental engineering.

I'm (3) classes into a graduate program and I've learned little above what I learned in undergrad. In fact, It was nearly week 7 in an advanced concrete grad class before I learned a single thing I didn't have in undergrad. After that, is was almost all what I had in undergrad for the remainder.

 

[3doorsdwn]

B16A2,

“Well then, I guess the 20 page report I'm writing with my professor, presenting our findings to the design community, and that will be published is doing nothing for my communication skills.”

Irrelevant as most MS programs (especially ones with the non-thesis option) revolve around structural design and analysis courses.


“By the time BS candidates are done learning the basics of math, physics, chem, materials, dynamics and statics, there isn't much time left to devote to "real" courses. I know there'd be no way I could take more than 4 structural courses because there just wasn't enough time. Taking away gen ed's is not an option because engineers are communication starved as is.”

I know the hours required for a BS have changed since I graduated (with 140 hours). But when I go through my transcript as an undergrad, I quickly ID 15 hours of English; 9 hours of economics; and about 15-21 hours of other useless coursework that could be allocated to core engineering classes without undermining anyone’s technical communication ability. I mean, I enjoy reading the classics as much as anyone else but if I want to read Joyce, Milton, Hemingway, et al but I can do that on my own time. How many technical writing/communication classes does one need? Surely not 15 hours worth.

“What's illogical is a MS degree holder getting through a structural program without taking any advanced concrete courses. Sounds weird and I question what school would allow such a thing.”

In that case YOU need to look at ASCE’s recommendations more closely yourself. ASCE’s recommendation for the BOK does not mandate a class in advanced reinforced concrete.

 

[B16A2]

After nearly a full semester in graduate school (after having received both my PE and SE) I will reinforce the following statement "The four-year internship period (engineer-in-training)after receipt of the BSCE degree cannot make up for the formal educational material that would be gained from a master's degree or equivalent program."

If you're a structural engineer and your school doesn't make you take a reinforced concrete course for your plan of study, you should probably consider attending a different school.

 

[Lion06]

B16A-
Do you have a graduate degree or are you in grad school?
I am 3 semesters into a grad degree and the only class that I really benefited from so far was Advanced Structural Mechanics. I've also had a wood/masonry class (which I already learned in 2 years of EIT experience EVERYTHING that was taught in the class), and an Advanced Concrete class (which one of the new few things I learned was plastic design for concrete). I believe that LARGE majority of material learned in graduate design courses can be pretty easily learned from experience. The classes that, IMO, can't (or would be pretty hard to) be self taught are the mechanics/analysis courses. Most graduate programs require, at most, 2 of these courses. I have taken an advanced mechanics course, and will take an advanced analysis course, but the rest are design courses.

 

[3doorsdwn]

Well, thanks for your opinion B16. I will give it the consideration it deserves. But since I earned my M.S. over a year ago: it’s a little late for me. Furthermore this goes back to what I was saying earlier: even taking the non-thesis option [i.e. 30 hrs] I STILL didn't get a chance to take a few classes. While you may consider a class in advanced reinforced concrete essential, I (as someone who designs concrete structures everyday on the job) did not. Furthermore, most programs allow the student to structure their area of study for their desired goals in their career. I can think of few programs that don't.