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.

 

[moltenmetal]

B16A2: in Canada, you don't get a license to practice structural engineering: you get a license to practice professional engineering, period. We're a self-regulated profession, which doesn't just mean that we hire our own police to beat us over the head when we do a bad job. Fundamentally, it means that we licensed professional engineers regulate our own practice- whether we offer our services directly to the public or to the public via employment. It's up to the licensee to determine if they're adequately prepared, in academic and experience terms, to undertake a particular task- and each licensee is accountable for those choices, accepting career-terminating professional liability if they undertake work for which they are not competent.

All disciplines of professional engineering need licensure as a means to protect the public. None are exempt in their entirety. And believe me, we chemical engineers are perhaps the least able to hide our mistakes- they are often seen and heard at considerable distance...

I know full well that both the educational system and the licensure system in the US is VERY different than that in Canada.

What you're arguing is that you can't provide an adequate academic background to a structural engineer in a four year Bachelors' degree. That may well be true in the US, or may not be- not having been educated there I cannot comment. Though I am not a structural engineer myself, I know many fine Canadian structural engineers who would argue that point with you quite eloquently.

 

[3doorsdwn]

B16A2, I too would like to see education for structural engineers improve, but I think it can be done by alterations of the undergraduate curriculum. If this level of education was acceptable [for structural, or whoever] decades ago, the question then becomes: what has changed? Obviously the curriculum of many undergraduate programs and the lack of mentoring. [Changes in technology cannot be addressed in the class room anyway (as software usage is typically learned on the job anyway).] The former can addressed by adjusting the curriculum and the latter is difficult to address (but will never be handled by adding an additional degree).

As for your assertion that “…the people I saw complaining about the MS requirement were the ones who don’t have challenging work, those who are ignorant about how complex codes have become, those who went to bad MS programs, and those who are just plain lazy…” is somewhat inaccurate because I fall into none of those categories. (I, like you, went back and got an MS later on as well [in fact, I didn’t finish it until after I had already got my PE].) To be blunt, there is a wide gulf between (what is, and what should be) a legal requirement for professional practice and what a company may need (in terms of specialized skill). Someone designing trusses for a living obviously does not need a masters degree, but a company may require it if they (for example) do consulting work involving dynamic loads. It is up to the individual if they feel that through education and (more importantly) EXPERIENCE they are up to the task. Otherwise, they may have to “punt”. An MS requirement (while certainly improving the background of most engineers) does not (in my humble opinion) address the bulk of the work done in this profession, nor CAN it address the lack of mentoring.

 

[B16A2]

Yes, there's structural positions out there that dont require a MS degree, such as a truss designer, such as the DOT engineer who designs miles upon miles of 4' tall retaining walls, etc. I consider those as non challenging positions. No offense intended toward those positions. I think we're saying the same thing, you're just nicer about it

Not sure I would go as far as saying the bulk of work out there doesn't warrant a MS, but I see where you're coming from. Though, in my experience in the past 6 years, with 2 as a SE2, the engineers with the MS degrees were more professional and driven to do things right. Whereas there were a lot of BS engineers who just didn't care and didnt have a clue. Based on what I'm seeing thus far in grad school, I dont see any of the schluffs who copy work to get through the courses. Everyone there wants to learn the material. Of course, there's going to be the BS engineers who are honest and know what they're doing, but it seemed to me they were in the minority. I think raising the bar is going to weed out and/or prevent a lot of the lower quality folks from entering the profession. That's the ultimate goal of ASCE.

 

[gwynn]

Moltenmetal:

A couple comments:

The complaints I have heard about BASc grads come from people in firms that push the envelope and challenge thier employees regularly. BASc grads don't have the theoretical background to be of use is something I hear fairly often. Whether it is true that the actual coursework is lacking or if it has just become the norm for the more talented students to commit to graduate work is debateable.

Weight is given to the MEng, as some firms will ask new hires to go back and take the grad program part time while working. If you could find statistics of the percentage of domestic structural MEng students taking the program part time, I would think it is fairly high.

Licensing depends on location. Some cities have, or plan on, going the route of requiring a seperate structural license for anyone submitting plans. It has been considered on a Provincial basis as well.

 

[drebelx]

More theory for the weary.

 

[3doorsdwn]

B16A2,

“Not sure I would go as far as saying the bulk of work out there doesn't warrant a MS, but I see where you're coming from. Though, in my experience in the past 6 years, with 2 as a SE2, the engineers with the MS degrees were more professional and driven to do things right. Whereas there were a lot of BS engineers who just didn't care and didnt have a clue. Based on what I'm seeing thus far in grad school, I dont see any of the schluffs who copy work to get through the courses. Everyone there wants to learn the material. Of course, there's going to be the BS engineers who are honest and know what they're doing, but it seemed to me they were in the minority. I think raising the bar is going to weed out and/or prevent a lot of the lower quality folks from entering the profession. That's the ultimate goal of ASCE.”

I don’t know that I buy the notion that requiring an MS could eliminate the “schluffs” in our business. One of the biggest bums I know has an MS, and he feels he is above doing any sort of grunt work.

It’s been my experience that people who are committed enough to go through the (current) 4 step process of getting the PE aren’t going to be slackers.

 

[HgTX]

Except for those who are.

Hg


Eng-Tips policies: faq731-376

 

[civilperson]

Expand all requirements to limit the number of engineers. Thus, those of us grandfathered in will realize better wages due to shortage of certified personnel.

 

[B16A2]

The medical profession limits the number of seats that can be graduated per year to raise their demand to supply ratio to boost their pay......Im not really sure why engineers oppose it in their own profession.

 

[3doorsdwn]

That's a good point B16. But demand (especially right now) is pretty strong for engineers, but even worse: the number of REGISTERED engineers is still on the decline. Upping the requirements fro registration cannot do anything but exasperate these trends.

Now, why exactly salaries don't reflect this (at least to the satisfaction of some): I don't know. (Maybe we all need to unionize. But then again: does anyone ever think they are being paid enough? You see millionaire athletes holding out for more all the time.

 

[Lion06]

B16A definitely has a thing for MS degrees. I agree that it is a good thing in general, but it is certainly not the end all and be all. To make a blanket statement that BS engineers are relegated to non challenging engineering positions is a poor characterization, IMO. I not only have a BS only, but it isn't even a BSCE, it is a BS ET in structural design. I work on very challenging projects all the time with top tier architects. Many of our projects end up in architectural magazines or newspapers.I am ahead of my peers when it comes to technical competence, and many have MS degrees from Virginia Tech, Cornell, and Berkeley.
At the end of the day, it is wanting to be a great engineer that makes one do a good job on challenging projects. While I would concede that having a MS sort of lets you know that an engineer wants to be good, that doesn't say anything about the BS only engineer who has 3 kids at home and no time to get through a MS program.
That's almost like saying, "since all corvettes are red, then any red car must be a corvette". You wouldn't make that statement so why would you say, "all MS engineers are good, so any good engineer must have a MS"?

 

[B16A2]

3doors, I'm sure not afraid of headhunters begging me to come work for their companies!

My last job was in a city that couldn't attract many engineers and my salary reflected it. The company knew how difficult it would be to replace a SE. Go to places where SE's are more common and I don't receive the same treatment.

EIT, Who said end all of be all? We're talking about raising the bar.....not eliminating every problem in the industry. With as many posts as you have on this site, I'm gonna assume you're more driven than most.

 

[MechEng2005]

I don't disagree with evaluating existing requirements to determine if the bar needs to be raised. However, if the bar is raised too much, there will be complaints. Maybe from engineers, or maybe from the companies saying that they can't find enough qualified people (at what they want to pay of course). If the bar is put too far out of reach, the whole thing may be scrapped.

For example, if every engineering project (including non-public works and backyard ballistic hobbies) had to be stamped by somebody with a P.E., PhD, and 30 years of experience. Well, I think that the regulatory body would end up scrapping the requirement all together before long. Granted, this is a bit of an exaggeration, but I hope the point is clear. Raising the bar to increase wages must be done carefully, or there will be a response.

I don't think I have translated my thoughts well, but I hope you get the point. The fact is that if the bar is raised and the cost of engineering work (due to wages for those qualified and such) goes up 50%, it is likely that the amount of projects will decrease. Or maybe some less complex projects will be done "under the radar" to try and avoid the requirements.

-- MechEng2005

 

[EddyC]

I think that the real agenda of ASCE/NSPE/NCEES is to create a small group of specialist (read: highly paid) engineers.

 

[drebelx]

Why do older, more established and possibly wiser engineers want to bump off younger, more novice and possibly eager engineers?

 

[KENAT]

drebelx, for the same reason Kings etc. of old would kill of potential contenders for the throne.

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

 

[drebelx]

How do they get this power?

 

[drebelx]

Are these the same elder "king" engineers that the young engineers are to be mentored by?

Something seems to be causing a conflict of interest.

 

[B16A2]

If you guys honestly think three additional semesters of school will "bump off" that many young engineers we really do have a problem regarding ignorant engineers.

 

[Lion06]

B16A-
I don't believe it is merely 3 additional semesters of school. That statement has the implicit assumption that all engineering students go to college immediately after high school and at the conclusion of their BS degree have zero to so little responsibility that they can spend and additional 15k - 30k in tuition AND forego a years salary to actually get it done in a single year.
If that were the case, I know I never could have even considered engineering. I worked full time with two kids and a wife while taking SEVEN (7) years to finish my undergrad. To throw another 10-12 classes on that would have easily turned that (7) years into (10). I really believe that could have made the difference in my career path. I also do not believe that I am alone in the journey I took through school.
At the end of the day, none of these requirements are met in a vaccuum. Real life circumstances do get in the way.
Cutting out all of those engineers who didn't take the "traditional" road through college would be left out in the cold and I don't believe we'd be a better profession for that.
I graduated from a very small high school (only 53 in my graduating class) and NO ONE (not my parents, not my guidance counselor, NO ONE) encouraged me to even go to college, let alone advise me of some potential career paths based on my 790 math SAT. I ended up following the same road that every other person from my school takes, which is to finish high school, get a decent job at the local factory, get married and have kids. I had a planned child at 21. That seems absurd to me at this point in my life, but was the reality at the time. Anyway, as I was doing a job that you could train a really dumb monkey to do I was daydreaming about my calculus and physics classes (even four years after high school) and taking time to prove that the area of a circle is pir^2 using double integration and polar coordinates. I started kicking around the idea of going back to school around year 3 of this nightmare of a job, but life circumstances wouldn't allow it at the time. I had a new child to support and my wife didn't work. When my son turned two I made the decision that I could not do this work for the rest of my life. I honestly felt like I was wasting any talent I might have. I ended up enrolling in classes at the "local" community college (it was an hour drive one way), and started off the journey knowing not only that it was going to take a lot longer based on my circumstances, but that it would also be a lot more difficult based on those same circumstances. I took classes at two different community colleges (gen ed) and three different campuses of the university I attended to get done as soon as possible. The drive time from the two farthest campuses I attended was over 3 hours (I point this out only to show it was a serious committment above what typical kids going right from high school could ever imagine). I expected it to take on the order of 6 to 7 years, but if I knew it was going to be 10..... I honestly can't say I would have made the same choice. I might be a math teacher now if it were that way.
The point I'm trying to make is that just because some people can go one extra year after doing 4 doesn't mean that is the reality for everyone. I would hate to think that poor guidance offered to high school kids could prevent them from becoming productive members of this wonderful profession. I truly love what I do. If I could be anything in the world, I would want to be a structural engineer. I know this now, but it wasn't so apparent as a 17 year old kid.
Sorry for the overly long post, I just have really strong feelings about being thought of as a second rate engineer based solely on the fact that I have a BS only or that my degree is in ET and not CE. I take my job very seriously and strive to learn as much as I can as efficiently as I can and really be the best engineer I can possibly be. That should be the mark of a good engineer, not the ability to spend an extra year in grad school right away or having a BSCE instead of a BSET. I mean, at the end of the day, it's what you took out of the classes, not how many of them you had.