Viable masters degree for me?

[Dannyhelou22]

Hello, my name is Danny.

A bit of background on me.. I am 24 years old, currently working in a very specific and special field of medicine, called nuclear medicine. I am currently a lead technologist at the hospital I work at, and have about 2 years worth of experience in this field. It is great, pays well, but I’ve been exploring other careers as I feel a bit of burn out at time. This may be due to the fact that I am the sole nuclear medicine leader here.

My education included a bachelor of science in nuclear medicine technology from University at Buffalo. I recently inquired about the systems engineering MS at Penn state, the only major pre req was to have calculus 1 and statistics completed, which I have satisfied at this time. I was recommended to apply to this program, even thought my background is not of engineering.

So here I am, asking the professionals on their opinion on this. If I were to complete a systems engineering MS, or similar program, would this open new opportunities for me in the field of engineering? Although my bachelors is not of an engineering discipline? I cannot find a specific answer, and I may not get one, but thought I should first ask professional engineers in the field their advice.

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time.

 

[fel3]

I used to work with a guy, now long since retired, who earned three simultaneous bachelor's degrees (mathematics, economics, and physics) from an Ivy league school. He then earned a masters in civil engineering from some other big-name school. He had a long and successful career as a civil engineer.

 

[IRstuff]

Hypothetically, yes. Nevertheless, not having an engineering background can potentially, limit your job scopes and career advancements. That said, you'd still be able to potentially get a job at a one of companies that makes nuclear imaging systems or adjacent equipment.

 

[Ron247]

I am not familiar with Systems Engineering at all. But the term engineering is used a lot in this world. My uncle is called a Sanitation Engineer, but he seriously drives a truck that picks up trash. And he never failed to point out he got his engineering degree faster than I got mine and a lot easier.

I noticed Calculus 1 is required. We have to take Calculus 1, 2 & 3 and Differential Equations in Civil Engineering, Mechanical, Electrical etc. I took all of them, remember none, and have used none in my everyday work. I know of 2 people who got a PhD in Civil with the emphasis on Environmental without having a BS or MS in Civil. But both of them had 4-year Biology degrees that were appropriate for Environmental. I do not think they would have been allowed to get a PhD centered on something that was not in alignment with Biology such as Structures or Transportation.

Having a future in engineering is possible, but most likely will be aligned with whatever continuing education you choose to take.

 

[GregLocock]

In my opinion (that and $6 will get you a cup of coffee) SE is a great discipline...if you are an SME. Otherwise you end up being the keeper of checklists and documentation, death by spreadsheet.

 

[3DDave]

I would suggest Project Engineering over Systems Engineering.

<rant>

Systems engineering is ... interesting. The area of study came up a long time ago as a solution to large project procurement problems with the Department of Defense with the idea being that someone could line up all the requirements and then parcel them out in little pieces and that, because a a "Systems Engineer" was involved, when all the little pieces came together it would work and be on time and be on cost.

The problem is that there are a few people who can do that and that the idea is that the ability to do that can be taught. PERT charts, for example; that was a terrific innovation, but it's not PERT charts that are great, it was the guy who invented them who was great. If one needs to be taught to use a PERT chart, then that's not the same level of great.

There are sub-parts of systems engineering that are brought together, typically the "ilities" such as reliability, affordability, repairability, and the related areas of doing product life predictions, such as looking at typical electrical component failures and predicting how many failures will happen to a circuit board over its life. All great stuff and all, for me, boring as heck, but a stand-alone valuable effort for complicated products. Systems Engineering is like the Blob and they take over the analysis of "ilities" as if they invented it.

I have had contact with a number of Systems Engineers who come out and decree that various groups WILL produce to their performance requirements in their time allocations and to their budget limits, all things upper management loves to hear, without the slightest idea of what needs to be done, how long it will take to do it, nor how much it will cost. They put up cartoons and diagrams and wave hands over how wonderful things will be when it all works. Individuals doing what Systems Engineering covers is great - the guy who ran the Lockheed Skunk works and created the U-2 and the SR-71? One of the best modern systems engineer I know of. For every one of him there are a bunch who get along OK, but the ones who declare themselves or have a degree?

Frankly, anyone who has not managed at least 4 major projects from proposal to completion should never be in charge of designing any such system. I'd start with a cutoff of at least 35 years old, maybe 40.

<angry rant>
Here's an example. I worked on an optical package that could either be lifted on an extensible mast on a vehicle or carried off into the weeds to be less obvious. There was a critical maximum weight that was allowed to this package and a tough heat rejection requirement. Guess what the Systems Engineer didn't do? Look at the customer requirements. Seems like that would be the first thing to do. Nope. Just carved up this and that into little pieces.

Come "game day" when the initial demos are getting done and that off-vehicle operation isn't working. Why? Because apparently the Systems Engineer doesn't know that a thin enough cable to reach that far from the vehicle has too great a voltage drop when the vehicle battery is getting low for the system to f'n function.

So now it's like, screw the weight and screw the heat rejection, so the EEs added a voltage boost converter on the vehicle and a voltage buck converter on the optical package - screw keeping the water out, we can just drill some holes and put some silicone sealant. This on a box that had no weight allowance for desiccant or a breather port, but the EEs messed up, so they can do whatever they want and it saves making a stub cable with just the buck converter for off-vehicle use.

The best part? The camera they chose had a protective housing, but not a water-resistant one; it was wide open to dust and dirt and moisture. That was the function of what I designed; to keep the camera safe from contamination. I asked that the several pound chunk of aluminum housing be removed from the camera but was told "we cannot do that." No reason. It also interfered with heat removal from the camera. The camera was designed to be used in a far nicer environment.

That's what Systems Engineering without the experience to know enough about all the elements of the design process looks like.

The best part was my little box was attached to a gimbal and set on the mast. Not bolted. What could go wrong? The customer agreed with our Systems Engineer that the operators would use the latches on the vehicle to lock the gimbal in place before driving. The operators did not, dumping the entire assembly which landed on my enclosure. The enclosure was ruined - the camera was protected. I think it was in customer hands for about 1 week.
</rant>

Project engineer/ Project management - every place needs those.

 

[GregLocock]

I agree about the minimum age/experience needed.

We got heavily into SE 30 years or so ago, but rather than having dedicated SEs we all used the tools (with varying degrees of competence and enthusiasm). On the mechanical side we mostly didn't bother with interface requirements and the like, we know what cars look like. I suspect the smoke doctors used IRs a bit more. That was about when ABS and TC and ESC got introduced, all of which were safety related and multidisciplinary, so a formal approach made sense.