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.

 

[MechEng2005]

B16A2 -

I don't know that 3 additional semesters will "bump off" young engineers. However, I question the reasoning behind requiring it. I do think it is a fair amount to ask of engineers (or engineering students). If it takes an additional 3 semesters for somebody to be qualified, maybe ABET accreditation for BS degrees should be raised (possibly requiring schools to make engineering degree programs 1-2 years longer). At least this way the cost would be for undergraduate classes instead of the increased graduate rate. Also, it would be more straight forward to students graduating high school what it was going to take to join the engineering profession.

Also, at least for a BS-Mechanical Eng. there were a number of course I took that aren't terribly relevant to my current industry. I wouldn't say there were worthless. There value was just more in providing insight into different aspects than I typically work with and providing a more "well-rounded" technical background. However, if the additional 3-semesters is not specific to my position and industry, I don't see how it would make me better at my job. I suppose one could argue it will make me a better engineer (again, more well-rounded and familiar with other aspects), but I would say that having knowledge that is not relevant to the position doesn't make the designs I create any better. So I'm supposed to spend time and money for something that is of little benefit to me, and no benefit to my employer. I just don't see the sense of it.

-- MechEng2005

 

[JaredS]

I agree with youngstructural, the inclusion of new education requirements would have absolutely dissuaded me from pursuing an education in engineering.

Initially I was very skeptical about going into engineering, I had wanted to be an architect but I didn't have the money to go out of state and there aren't any good architecture schools in Colorado. However, while I wasn't very interested in the physical sciences or mathematics I happened to be very good at them. My choice four years ago was that I would pursue a civil engineering degree and then later in life to pursue a M.Arch. This stated, 5 1/2 years of engineering would have definitely scared me into pursuing a different career.

What ultimately persuaded me to pursue a M.S. was not that some big-wigs decided it was necessary for engineering students to achieve that level of education but instead because there were no structural companies that were interested in hiring someone that only has the B.S. It is my opinion that a national forum is not the right place to determine what is and what isn't a quality engineering education. Those decisions should be made the hiring firms instead.

 

[B16A2]

Its evident that self governing doesn't work. Look at the vast difference in quality of engineering on the west coast vs the midwest. Firms aren't always going to choose based on quality. There's that thing called money that gets in the way of ethical judgment. Plus, who's to say the hiring firms are competent?

Honestly, I don't feel sob stories are good reasons to not proceed with ASCE's plan.

 

[Lion06]

That wasn't a sob story. I was making the point that not everyone has the opportunity to pursue the master's degree immediately.

 

[drebelx]

B16A2,

Does more education result in more ethical engineers?

Are there more ethical engineers now than before the education standards were raised in the last century?

You say money gets in the way of ethical judgement. All engineers get paid with money. Can engineers even be ethical when they are paid with money?

 

[B16A2]

Yes

I don't know, maybe someone has done a study paralleling ethics and how society as a whole has changed.

Sure, but money creates a constant pressure not to be. Some individuals can stand the pressure, others can't.

 

[HgTX]

Ethical tangent:

Repackage "financial considerations" as "good stewardship of resources" and ta-daa! Ethical problem magically goes away.

Hg

Eng-Tips policies: faq731-376

 

[3doorsdwn]

I also don't see how someone holding a graduate degree will address any [perceived] ethics issue. That [again] presupposes that the engineer holding the graduate degree is somehow more competent than the one without one. (And I think most recognize that this isn't always the case.)

 

[Lion06]

B16a-

Are you saying that the large majority of engineers without MS are incompetent and the only way to ensure that the majority of engineers are competent is to require MS? That's what it sounds like to me?

 

[drebelx]

StructuralEIT,

He's saying something much worse.

In bringing up ethics he's telling us that less educated engineers are in general, "bad people."

BA162,

Are there any studies that indicated that more education makes engineers more ethical?

 

[Lion06]

I was giving him the benefit of the doubt thinking he was saying that unethical firms would hire incompetent engineers just because they can pay them less.

I think that is beyond a stretch to say that an engineer with a MS is more ethical than one with a BS only for no other reason than he has attained a higher degree. That makes no sense whatsoever. None. I don't even see correlation. I guess if you were comparing a high school dropout to a PhD, maybe you could make the case that the drastic difference in education/(perceived) intelligence/socioeconomic status might cause one to behave more unethically, but that's absurd, IMO, to make that leap between a BS engineer and a MS engineer. I hope that's not what he was getting at. After all, I've never seen any qualifications of ethical behavior required for a MS program, let alone the idea that it is weighted more heavily than academic success.

 

[moltenmetal]

Wow: a Masters' degree now makes you more virtuous as well as somehow giving you competence that you cannot gather via practicing as an engineer-

Funny- my own Masters' did neither of these things for me. But then again I'm not a structural engineer so my opinion here is irrelevant.

Oh yeah- and you can apparently tell a firm's quality based on how much it charges, and its geographical location too!

I now withdraw my stick from the hornet's nest- have a good discussion folks!

 

[B16A2]

You guys are drawing your own blanket conclusions and are taking them personally. Also note ASCE's mission doesn't solely rest on ethics.

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.

The perception is that CIVIL is the cesspool of low quality engineers who couldn't hack it in Aero, EE, or ME. I see it when I go to CEU seminars in my region, don't you? I sure would like to see this image turned around, but as usual it looks like there'll be too many CIVIL's arguing...including those complaining that all the night school folks will be dissuaded because "it's too hard". What a joke.

 

[Lion06]

It's not our conclusions, it your statements. Even the statement of "all those night school folks" makes it pretty clear to me that your opinion is if you don't go to school right after college or have the ability to go to school full-time as a more traditional student later in life that engineering should be a near-impossible profession to enter.
I can't speak for CIVIL's (as you call them), but I certainly think that Structural's (taking poetic license with your terminology) are far from a cesspool of low quality engineers.

 

[drebelx]

B16A2,

If the perception today is that civil engineers are of low quality, at some point in the past there must have been civil engineers of high quality.

Compared to today, did the high quality civil engineers in the past have more or less formal education?

 

[HgTX]

It is true, though, that there is a perception that civil engineers are those who couldn't make it in other disciplines (heard that from my very own biological father, EE)--and I doubt the sneerers from other disciplines bother to make the distinction between structural and other branches of civil when it comes to that.

(And then within the various disciplines of civil engineering, the structurally oriented sneer at the transportation engineers. Et cetera.)

Hg

Eng-Tips policies: faq731-376

 

[3doorsdwn]

B16A2,

“The perception is that CIVIL is the cesspool of low quality engineers who couldn't hack it in Aero, EE, or ME. I see it when I go to CEU seminars in my region, don't you? I sure would like to see this image turned around, but as usual it looks like there'll be too many CIVIL's arguing...including those complaining that all the night school folks will be dissuaded because "it's too hard". What a joke.”

On the one hand you say that it is perception, then on the other hand you want to say it shows when you go to pdh seminars. No offense, but you are kind of talking out of both sides of your mouth here.

In this business I have met yahoos in every discipline. Education doesn’t have anything to do with it. In fact, I would say the civil/structural guys tend to be the ones (on average) who (more often than not) have graduate degrees. How many HVAC or electrical engineers have you met that have graduate degrees? Virtually none that I know. And yet (according to you) we are perceived as being dummies despite the fact we tend to have more advanced education. So in order to fight perception you want to take it a step further and make it a legal requirement. The logic of that doesn’t hold water for me. More of the same (under a legal requirement) isn’t going to change anyone’s perception of us (in or out of the engineering profession).

 

[PBroad]

By "Cesspool" I guess you mean one full of BS graduates.

Well MS stands for "More of the same"

and PhD stands for "Piled higher and deeper"

 

[3doorsdwn]

HgTX,

"It is true, though, that there is a perception that civil engineers are those who couldn't make it in other disciplines (heard that from my very own biological father, EE)--and I doubt the sneerers from other disciplines bother to make the distinction between structural and other branches of civil when it comes to that."

Again: changing a legal requirement to fight a perception is ridiculous. What makes anyone think that this alteration can address that anyway? If people think an undergraduate degree in Civil/structural engineering is worthless, what makes you think they will value a MS any higher? Does anyone differentiate between an undergraduate degree and graduate degree in Sociology? How about Nuclear Engineering? Of course not, they have the same perception because of their core subject matter.

Furthermore, trying to change public perception on anything (without an almost Big Brother sized AD campaign) is futile. The general public is obsessed with dummies like Paris Hilton and Brittany Spears; and The National Enquirer has a larger readership than Time. How do you achieve any meaningful change in though patterns with a people such as this?

 

[3doorsdwn]

Pardon me, I meant to say (in my last post): "How do you achieve any meaningful change in thought patterns with a people such as this?"