Should engineering faculty be licensed? 13

[lacajun]

Opinion Piece on licensing of faculty

Pamela K. Quillin, P.E.
Quillin Engineering, LLC

 

[zdas04]

When I was in the Navy I just loved asking new officers if they went to college or "trade school". The ones that went to Annapolis never seemed to understand that by "trade school" the enlisted guys meant them. Funny joke at age 20.

When I got in a position of selecting Engineers for projects I started finding out that folks from West Point and Annapolis were universally better prepared to do the job than folks who went to other schools. I don't mean to say they were smarter (or dumber) than folks who went to other (excellent) schools, but they just didn't see the world in black and white and were able to deal with the shades of gray the is Engineering far better than most.

I've never investigated the curriculum at these "trade schools", but whatever it is it seems to work well for developing people who can become Engineers.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.

 

[SNORGY]

lacajun,

Thanks.

Not so much "destroyed" as "completely obliterated" my enjoyment of engineering, at least within the context of where I am currently employed. One of the things that industry (apparently) teaches is that it's OK to treat engineers like crap and produce mediocre engineering along as the billings are maintained.

That's not me. I try to escape from the perversion by taking every opportunity that I can to show the young folks how what they are learning in university is applied daily in the workplace. One of my highlights this year was showing a couple of them how to apply some NTU effectiveness and other Heat Transfer correlations to verify a HYSYS simulation for a heat exchanger, and having them come back to me after a day or two and ask, "If all that is true, wouldn't we be better off just swapping the fluids from shell side to tube side and vice-versa?", which although I didn't see it at the time up until the moment they suggested it, turned out to be exactly the right thing to do.

They reworked the problem. I went to Starbucks, since I had nothing more of value to add to their work.

Apart from events like that, I only take pride in shielding them from the ugliness, the used-car-sales mentality of the engineering business, focusing them instead on the direct relevance of what they are learning to the job at hand.

Their time will come when they see the stupidity in bosses and businessmen who have lost touch with their passion for engineering in favor of their hunger for profit; those people who are only concerned about "billing" and "staff utilization" anf "full time equivalents" and really don't give a rat's behind about "engineering".

My two months away from the office cannot come at a better time.

 

[YoungTurk]

Snorgy et. al - if engineering school isn't teaching the practical application of science and math, who is? I always though those primarily interested in the theoretical side belonged over on the physics and math campus. Personally, I was *extremely* frustrated when taking engineering classes (which did not include "theory of" in the title) if the professors did not at least attempt to regularly ground the theories with practical examples.

I also doubt there are many engineers in China or India arguing about whether it is better to teach engineers theory or practice.

David - I find it humorously ironic that in one paragraph you declare a particular group of people is "universally" better "able to deal with the shades of gray".

 

[zdas04]

"Universally" is a tough word. I didn't mean to imply that these guys were themselves "universally better" than anyone else, I really meant to say that someone suited to be an Engineer would be a better Engineer than they would otherwise be if they make it through those trade schools. That doesn't sound any better does it?

I've known some really good Engineers who went to schools that don't spring to mind when you think of "Engineering School". I always wondered how good they would have been if they had started out at one of the schools that I have tagged in my mind as preparing the best Engineers. I wonder that about myself (University of Arkansas, more regarded as a football and party school than an Engineering school).

Now I feel like I'm digging the hole deeper and will just shut up.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.

 

[Metalhead97]

I've had some really good and practical professors who were never licensed. The reality is that many engineers in my field are not licensed and industry doesn't institute licensing requirements. As a result, there is no motivation to get a PE for materials engineers. Also, I'm not convinced that passing an exam makes one a better engineer. I think challenging experiences matter the most; you can get both in academia and industry.

MH

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/luke-autry/1b/510/566

 

[lacajun]

SNORGY, you need a break from the routine and a fresh outlook on life and engineering. Many of us have been where you are. Surely answers exist for your situation and I hope you find them. Mentoring young people is a wonderful outlet to have and provides a great sense of satisfaction to help others grow in anyway possible. I'm glad you have that outlet along with your dogs and family. You have been blessed in many ways.

I'm still thinking about the AEA and whether to join or not and contribute whatever is possible. Where the profession is today isn't exactly to my liking either.

Pamela K. Quillin, P.E.
Quillin Engineering, LLC

 

[Twoballcane]

I have always in the past think that all engineers regardless should have their PE to practice engineering, however, during my idle time for some reason I was thinking about this post and came to different conclusion that the PE really belongs in the public sector where it originated. Not all requirements are the same in the diverse career tracks an engineer can go down namely academia, public, or industry. Each has different goals and responsibilities. What would be the advantage of a professor with a PE have in academia? There are no such requirements needed in research and development. Also, what’s next, that to work in public and industry you will need a PHd? One does not need that high level of thinking in these career tracks.
As for education, engineering is such an open ended career and so many advancing technologies that academia cannot keep up with it. So the next best thing is to find out (for Mechanical Engineering at least) is to teach theories that will benefit the student in what endeavor the student follows. Engineering theories such as heat transfer, statics, dynamics, thermodynamics, fluids, materials…etc. I feel that if the young engineer has a good base in engineering theories and can apply those in to practical problems in the real world than the engineer has reached their goal everything else is PM hoopla. In my analysis career, 80% of my analysis can come straight out of the text book used in college. Actually that should be the analyst first course is to break down the problem that can be easily calculated by hand and then all of a sudden it looks like what I did back in college.
I agree with SNORGY that we need more mentors to bridge that gap from college to work. I too have mentored a few and it is always a joy to watch how their hand calcs can predicted what’s going to happen when we go test and then manipulate the hand calcs for a solution and the returning test data correlates. They’ve solved a real world problem using math and physics that they were trained back in college. It’s almost like magic to them.


Tobalcane
"If you avoid failure, you also avoid success."
“Luck is where preparation meets opportunity”

Perception is reality: Your reality is how others perceive you, not how you think of yourself.

 

[Maui]

There is a gap between the academic engineering programs at the University level and the actual engineering requirements of industry. We need to find a way to effectively bridge that gap. The best way to do this from my perespective is to educate the engineering faculty in the application of the theory they are teaching to these students. If they can learn what the application actually involves, then they can use such examples in class to drive home the point of the theory and become more effective in their roles as educators.

How anyone can say that this approach "waters down" the education that students would receive is beyond me.


Maui

http://www.EngineeringMetallurgy.com

 

[lacajun]

I dunno Maui, my profs discussed the problem of just enough practical application to not water down the theory. This arose in the ABET accreditation reviews. In their minds, it was an issue. Most of them had industry experience, Ph.D.s in EE, and PE's, too. Dean Karkalits wanted them to get it and encouraged all graduates to get it to promote professionalism. He had some engineers talk to us, as seniors, who did not get it and wished they had. It is no indicator of being a good engineer or a bad engineer. Good and bad don't know boundaries.

Louisiana had a vo-tech system, which my cousin worked diligently in until his untimely death. He worked really hard to ensure the students got a quality education in automotive, welding, HVAC, etc. It was a good system in his day and it appears to be part of a community college system now. It's growing up. Central Louisiana Technical College When I was younger this idea was bandied about often and it appears they implemented it to some degree. Louisiana lacked a community college system and studied the system in Texas. Trade schools have a special place with me.

zdas04, I'd say the military academy graduates I've met are prepared to meet challenges many of us are unprepared for. I include myself in that category. Most of the ones I've met are very impressive. It may not be the content of the classes as much as the self-discipline instilled or organizational skills or...

Pamela K. Quillin, P.E.
Quillin Engineering, LLC

 

[lacajun]

Not so much "destroyed" as "completely obliterated" my enjoyment of engineering, at least within the context of where I am currently employed. One of the things that industry (apparently) teaches is that it's OK to treat engineers like crap and produce mediocre engineering along as the billings are maintained.

As I rode at noon today, I thought about this. Some of the way engineers are treated are abusive. I've said so to some but in a nice way. Some got it and some didn't.

Pamela K. Quillin, P.E.
Quillin Engineering, LLC

 

[rconnor]

In my mind, an undergrad degree does three things:
1) teaches you the fundamental building blocks of knowledge in your field
2) teaches you how to problem solve
3) teaches you how to learn

The focus is on the "why" (things happen the way they due) (see #1) and equips you with the tools to solve the "how" (to do the job) (see #2 and #3). This may seem rather backwards to some, as to be "job ready" the focus should be on the "how". It is backwards as compared to technical colleges which focus on the "how" and the "why" is much less important.

However, I feel the reason for putting the emphasis on the "why" is for two reasons. The first being what Twoballcane alluded to which is the bredth of end jobs that an engineering degree can lead to makes it difficult to expect that universities prepare students to be "job-specific ready" in whatever sub-discipline they end up in. So the focus is on developing a strong sense of the underlying fundamental concepts that span across many areas. The second is that it allows the future engineers to handle those 1 in a 10/50/100 situations that fall outside of the perscriptive problem/solution that focusing on the "how" would help you with. In these situations, normally those that have important safetly implications, understanding the "why" allows you to go deeper into the issue and come up with a non-standard solution. And this is what engineers get paid for, this is the key value that engineers bring.

To bring all this back to the OP, since the focus of an undergrad education is not on training students for a job and is instead on equipping students with a toolbox of skills, it's easy to see why universities don't push for profs with P.E.'s. Now, I'm not saying that an undergrad engineering education should be devoid of all practical elements, far from it. Students do benefit greatly from a prof that can equate the theory to practice.

However, the opposite extreme, where the focus is all practical with little to no theory, is also not good. It trains people to be perscriptive problem solvers that have issues with solving things out side the norm.

What you need is a balance between the two. I feel that a much better approach than a P.E. requirement across the board is universities developing strong industry ties. Have guest lecturers come in, do field trips of local industrial plants, promote co-op programs, compete in university competitions, and promote engineering societies at university. This not only provides students with good practical, hands on experience but it also exposes students to local employeers and vise-versa.

 

[Forensic74]

Exactly, I dont think undergrads are prepared for a practical discussion in class. I went back for my MS after getting my PE and TA'd a few classes. I saw firsthand how they just wanted to memorize formulas and get answers...so they could make it to the keg party later that evening. They didn't care how what they were studying related to the real world, because they were still living in sheltered academia....I'm not sure I blame them; it's their last hoorah! So while making the professors have more practical background isn't a bad idea, I'm not sure it's going to have the profound impact that some in this thread think it will.

If you really want an effect, require undergrads have two years of internship prior to getting into the meat of Civil Engineering courses.

 

[Longinthetooth]

This letter recently appeared in the Btitish Chemical Engineer's journal (The TCE). I dont know how much it adds to the argument, but I thought it was an interesting point of view. I think the author was from Australia.


With reference to your recent article on perspectives of undergraduate education (tce 852, June 2012), I have had several graduates work for me over the years in various capacities. I think as people in industry we need to ask ourselves what we can realistically expect and require from a person just out of university. I value sound technical capability as well as the ability to communicate this.
That stated, I don’t expect graduates to possess the communication skills of an experienced professional and I see it as my role to help them develop this. I also don’t expect graduates to possess the same level of practical engineering judgement in the context of all other factors (financial, culture and team dynamics, regulatory, etc). It seems to me that, to some extent, industry practitioners would like to have some Utopian graduate possessing all requisite skills without the need to train, educate or develop them.
Much of what we do in industry is, in my opinion, application of universals to the singular, to concrete situations, all the while addressing a whole range of factors, many of which are unrelated to engineering. This requires judgement and skills borne of experience. Graduates, by definition, are at the beginning of the journey of acquiring such experience.
One of the quotations in your article was from a student suggesting that undergraduates should be more exposed to aspects such as contractor management and commissioning. Perhaps this is one extremely capable graduate, but I think most graduates would struggle in contractor management without gaining experience under the tutelage of more experienced practitioners. As for commissioning, can one learn this at university? I rather doubt it.
I think that much of the ‘art’ of the practice of engineering is best learnt on the job with the guidance of more experienced professionals. In fact some things cannot be learnt other than by reflection on practice – is university the best place to offer such practice? Rather should we be careful of excessively focussing on practical skills to the detriment of scientific or theoretical knowledge of basic principles – what many would I suppose refer to as the more academic skills.
That many students lament the lack of exposure to real world experience is understandable. The question is how best to acquire that while balancing the need to ensure that graduates leave university with strong fundamentals in their area of engineering. I do not profess to have the answer here although perhaps extending the degree by one year to include more industry-based subjects could be an option. My personal preference is to have someone with strong technical capability who also has enough maturity to appreciate that there are other factors involved in the real world and be open to learning. With that I am willing to take the responsibility and make the effort to help them learn as much as possible.
However we address this, we in industry need to appreciate that some of the investment (not burden) of developing graduates rests with us

 

[calguy07]

Exactly, I dont think undergrads are prepared for a practical discussion in class. I went back for my MS after getting my PE and TA'd a few classes. I saw firsthand how they just wanted to memorize formulas and get answers...so they could make it to the keg party later that evening. They didn't care how what they were studying related to the real world, because they were still living in sheltered academia....I'm not sure I blame them; it's their last hoorah! So while making the professors have more practical background isn't a bad idea, I'm not sure it's going to have the profound impact that some in this thread think it will.

If you really want an effect, require undergrads have two years of internship prior to getting into the meat of Civil Engineering courses.

I disagree. There were those of us in college that were dying to experience the practical application of what was being taught. Unfortunately, the professors either couldn't demonstrate this or were just more interested in reading text book excerpts from power point slides instead of using a black/white board to actually EXPLAIN how things really work.

...oh and some of us would also have LOVED the internship experience. Unfortunately the reluctance of companies to hire international students was an obstacle...but ya, requiring intenrships for the purposes you outlined is a good idea, just not realistic for every student.

 

[lacajun]

geordie87, I like the way that guy thinks. Thanks for posting his letter. He seems to still be very connected to and grounded in reality. Some forget as they progress how little they knew upon graduation. They tend to think what they know after 30 years of working they knew day one of their career.

calguy07, as a GA and tutor of more than a few students, MainMan10 makes a valid point.

Pamela K. Quillin, P.E.
Quillin Engineering, LLC

 

[GregLocock]

Many years ago, just after the steam engine was invented, in the UK there was a push for thick sandwich and thin sandwich degrees for engineers. These exposed the undergraduate to industry and vice versa. I wonder why these rather sensible schemes withered away?

I like that letter, it was spot on.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[Longinthetooth]

I did a thin sandwich degree in the 1960s. It took 4 years and the work periods were structured to give the student exposure to a variety of work environments. I spent 4 periods working for 4 different companires. They comprised 6 months each year as follows:

Working in a works lab doing tests and assisting trials on an operating plant
Labouring in in a fabrication shop (I actualy drilled a tubesheet and assembled a heat exchanger with my own hands).
Junior technician in a pilot plant
Very junior engineer in a design office.

I cant over estimate what all that gave me in terms of viewing the real world and how to operate in it, as well as the problems you encounter trying to use university gained engineering techniques in less than optimal situations (lack of data for instance).

Interestingly, because we got very short vacations, the time I spent in the university periods was almost exactly that we would have spent in a 3 year straight through course. Who needs a 13 week holiday in the summer?

 

[Maui]

Pamela, I am not proposing that engineering professors teach students the full rigors of a specific application so that they can then go out on the shop floor and actually do it themselves (like a trade school would). But rather to use such illustrative examples while teaching the theory so that the student can grasp how the theory can actaully be used to solve a real problem, instead of just presenting it simply as an abstract academic exercise. Obviously the theory forms the foundation for the student's education, and without this understanding they would be at a disadvantage in developing an understanding of unfamiliar manufacturing methods and processes. But the theory can be supplemented and enhanced through example to show students how to actually use it to solve a problem. And there is a practical reason why this should be done, especially now.

There was a time when companies would actually spend the first few months of employment training new graduates for what they would eventually be doing. But times have changed. Such programs cost money, and so are quite rare today. When a company hires a new employee they now provide minimal (or no) training to get them up to speed so that they can start contributing now. Pamela, this goes back to your point about industry expecting you to hit the ground running. With absolutely no exposure to the application of the theory at the University level and no training by the company, what is the likely outcome for the new graduate? Sink or swim. Not the preferred way to start your career, but many go through this, and it is overwhelming for some.


Maui

http://www.EngineeringMetallurgy.com

 

[lacajun]

Maui, if I came across as believing you will teach too little theory, I apologize. Since you have a Ph.D., you are more than qualified to teach theory with applications to meet your students' needs. Each class has its own personality and only you can discern what each student needs. We both know you cannot do the application without possessing enough theory to do so. Without theory, you'll only know that one application and probably not know it well enough.

My profs ran across some of the problems in the texts in industry. They also gave us some of the problems they'd seen in industry in our labs and exams. Applications are married to theory and are presented as problems for students.

When my career began, the training program was non-existent. I was assigned a mentor, given a two week plant introduction, and encouraging words from the Plant Manager. Their training program was whittled from a year long program to six months to two weeks. Cost cutting and not enough people to adequately train new hires. You learned by working, which is good and necessary but also has its drawbacks. They want engineers to arrive fully trained. Perhaps some day the human race will have evolved to the point we'll depart the womb with full knowledge and a set of skills for life. ;-)

When PPG was still owned by the Pitcairns, people weren't just resources but were people to develop and take care of. It had a family feel. I only knew it as a public company. The old timers talked about how it used to be. Remnants of some of their programs were still around, when I began. Those were gone soon after I began working for them.

Pamela K. Quillin, P.E.
Quillin Engineering, LLC

 

[xnuke]

I think the sink-or-swim philosophy is overwhelming for many engineering graduates. I've seen estimates that within 5 years of graduation, 2/3 of engineering graduates are no longer working in engineering. I've often wondered if it's because many engineering programs don't expose their students to the practice of engineering, and they don't like the difference between the "there's a right answer" mathematical problem solving they do in their classes and the open-ended problems or interpersonal problems they encounter in their workplace. I also think many graduates feel overwhelmed by design tasks at first since schools focus so much on analysis (as many professors have little design experience, and textbooks mostly focus on analysis).

I don't think faculty should have to get a P.E. simply to show that they meet a minimum standard of competency by passing the exams, but rather they should earn it in the workforce simply to gain an understanding of what many of their students will go on to do. I've often said that many engineering programs do a great job preparing students to go on to graduate school, but a terrible job preparing them to enter the workforce.

I have told many of my students that the multiple jobs I've had as an engineer relied mostly on a general problem solving ability and an understanding of design, and that my communication skills have been the most important aid to me in my career, even more important than my mathematical skills. By having them do a lot of engineering design in school, in accordance with codes and standards, producing their own engineering drawings and documentation, going through design reviews with me, and then building their designs so they see their flaws, they can benefit from my experience as a design engineer and learn whether or not they like engineering before they get out into the workforce. Unfortunately, not too many faculty can provide this sort of exposure to real-world engineering to students. This is just one of the reasons why I try to hire faculty with work experience over faculty with research credentials.

xnuke
"Live and act within the limit of your knowledge and keep expanding it to the limit of your life." Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged.
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.