 |
|
« The Many Faces of Safety & Health | Main | Tips & Schools for Future Engineers »
March 28, 2006
Burning Question
Is a 4-year engineering curriculum enough for practice at the professional level?
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://news.thomasnet.com/mt41/mt-tb.cgi/480
|
Advertisement
|
Comment
52 CommentsFour years should be enough, combined with a few years of experience which is very important. The academics want a longer education period to further their empires and salaries.
March 29, 2006 2:19 PMYes, but there will be on-the-job training in any job or field.
March 29, 2006 4:02 PMWith internships and work co-op programs, four years (six if you co-op heavily) should be enough. School is only the basis for acquiring knowledge, and full knowledge comes from solving real-world problems with colleagues for a paycheck.
March 29, 2006 6:10 PMAnswer: No.
I was an average student, graduating in 1970. There were few jobs available in 1970 for the average student. I went to work as an asst. engineer in a civil service position. I will shortly be retiring after 35-1/2 years of service. Lower comparable pay for most of career, but now will enjoy a good pension.
Academic education was theoretical, rarely practical. Was not mature enough to apply self. Once money was on the table and maturity set in, I learned virtually all of practical experience on extremely wide range of issues by contacting and questioning suppliers, reading specialized books and especially joining reputable professional societies such as APICS, ASQ, ISM, NAPM, ASM, etc. Cannot overly emphasize importance of professional societies: networking, current issues, educational resources. Do NOT think that you can answer every question that arises just on your academic credentials. I know too many people who have not realized the benefits of ongoing outside specialized education. As a result, I am leaving highly respected and a subject matter expert on several subjects.
March 29, 2006 6:25 PM4 years? Probably not .... Should spend at least half again as much either in the field where the "rubber meets the road" or in the back shop making their drawings "work" or "rework".... prior to receiving the final "Engineering degree"
"Theory" and "practice" are two different animals ... with two completely different learning curves, and some engineers apparently never learn "practice."
March 29, 2006 8:09 PM
Four years is enough if the curriculum is developed correctly. Normally, a lifetime of learning follows anyway. Is best to gain some direction in the profession before continuing with formal education.
March 30, 2006 12:01 AMWith all the manufacturing that is being outsourced to other countries, why are we discussing what it takes to make a good engineer?
A better question would be: What countries would hire green or seasoned American engineers, and what can we do to regain our manufacturing edge?
The last time we had a shortage of good manufacturing engineers, the consultants and top engineering managers trained people to do the grunt work to give managers and PEs time to make critical judgement calls.
Eventually, some of those trainees took over as department managers, passed the PE exams and only had problems changing jobs to a new company. That is how important experience is to finish off an education, even one in one of the engineering fields.
March 30, 2006 12:37 AMLet's see now.
330,000 annual graduates in the arts and another 330,000 annual graduates in the political and legal fields, compared with 55,000 annual graduates in engineering.
Half the Engineering graduates will return to foreign countries of origin.
90% of the world's engineers reside in Asia (China, India) by year 2010.
6% of the world's engineers reside in Mexico.
5% of the world's engineers reside in America.
There is a world energy crisis with petro supply declining 5% annually.
Asia energy consumption increases 15-20% annually.
A significant number of engineers are near retirement age after years of layoffs, loss of benefits and cross country transfers. GM and Ford are presently reducing the number of white collar, i.e. engineering, employees.
To further tighten the screws on engineering and scientific careers simply translates into further federal subsidies to the foreign engineering and scientific students in American universities. Highly qualified foreign engineers will train in America at American taxpayer expense and relocate to the country of origin.
The question itself substantiates American resolve to eliminate all technical and scientific nerds from American society and seek legal and negotiated resolutions for all concerns.
The numbers above will remain a mystery, as there is not enough technical capability in America to crunch the numbers or interpret the meaning.
March 30, 2006 1:47 AMThe universities are doing very well. After joining a firm, the engineer has the background to be grown into his craft in 18 to 24 months.
March 30, 2006 2:06 AMFour years is more than enough. First, there is precious little practical, real experience gained in engineering school. Only theory and limited application of it - a college degree simply demonstrates to prospective companies a capacity to learn. The majority of compainies, automotive in particular, do not use engineers as engineers, anyway! What would the point be in wasting yet more time outside of the workforce?
March 30, 2006 6:32 AMNo -- it should be a combined curriculum of classwork and co-op work of at least five years. Use the model at the University of Cincinnati College of Engineering as a model -- or any of the other fine schools using a co-op curriculum.
March 30, 2006 7:46 AMIt depends on the college or university. Engineering students from schools such as Purdue, MIT, Virginia Tech, Cal Poly, etc., turn out excellent engineers because they have concentrated programs. Other schools that fall back on their laurels in other areas (University of Michigan, Michigan State, Stanford, to name a few) probably should have longer programs with more "hands-on" training since they tend to feel more entitled just because of the status their alma matter holds. A good football team doesn't automatically mean a good engineering cirrculum.
Note: I never attended any of the above schools but have worked with engineers from them and can say this from experience.
March 30, 2006 7:56 AMI am an industrial engineer by trade and I will be 70 on April 24. I am still employed as a Senior I.E. Both our son and daughter are engineers, and it took them five years to get their degrees.
My opinion is it takes five years because of the degree of complexity of the engineering courses.
It also helps considerably with their GPA.
I did not get an engineering degree, and yet after three years in civil engineering as a drafting technician, I am miles ahead of nearly every EIT I have worked with. It's not more school needed. The students need more self-discipline.
March 30, 2006 8:44 AMFour years of academic training in theory is sufficient for learning "what" and "why", but only real-world experience teaches you "how" in a practical way. That's why I believe Cooperative Education is so valuable in the training of future engineers.
Co-op experience allows you to gain the academic background while at the same time getting to see and learn the practical applications of theory as well. Co-op experience is also very valuable for developing good interpersonal and communication skills, things that may not necessarily be a part of many college engineering curricula but are vital in the professional realm.
March 30, 2006 9:29 AMFour years should be enough to get the basics. On-the-job training provides more of what is needed. It is also a good idea to take refresher courses throughout your career since better ways of doing things are continually evolving.
March 30, 2006 9:29 AMFour years of training is sufficient for engineering. But for "professional engineering," at least two additional years should be required, plus passing a Federal Examination.
March 30, 2006 1:23 PMIn a broad field such as civil engineering, four years is not sufficient unless the job calls for general engineering knowledge. For example, a civil graduate could work in structural, construction, transportation, geotechnical, environmental, or water resources. In undergraduate work, a student will pick up courses in all of these fields. It is not until graduate school that an engineer really specializes. I personally believe that 3 to 4 years work experience before graduate school in the specific area of interest is best.
March 30, 2006 3:42 PMNo. Several good points have been made regarding practical education that occurs after the academic experience (4 years). I'm one who feels engineers in this country have had "short shrift" in terms of pay and societal recognition. Just over 100 years ago, physicians were still considered hacks, and civil engineers generally made over $1500/year (a handsome sum in 1900). Somehow, today physicians are wealthy and respected, and most folks in society seem not to recognize that an engineer has a better fundamental grasp of the factors that influence quality of life than does any other professional, save perhaps clergy.
The four-year degree truly can't be enough (at the equivalent of 140 semester credit hours required for the degree) for an engineer to function at the professional level. Most states require four additional years of experience before an engineer is allowed to write the examination for professional licensure. Those exams are tough -- but there seems to be a strong sense that they should be only tough enough to identify the "minimally competent" candidate.
The line has to be drawn somewhere, but these exams today are all multiple choice -- rather than the "essay" type used in the past. Supposedly this allows a better statistical basis for the "minimally competent" decision -- but the process is due to the influence of psychometricians, rather than engineers.
My preference would be that a preparatory engineering curriculum be offered that resulted in a four-year degree, but the candidate for professional work should be required to work at least one more year in academia -- and should then be awarded a professional degree. Should this degree be a Doctorate? Perhaps. Not a Ph.D. (the terminal degree), but a D.E. perhaps, to identify the candidate as one who has gone the extra mile preparing to serve the public professionally.
My bias arises from my participation in the development of some of the exams used to license professional engineers.
March 31, 2006 1:46 AMSome will need more years of in-school education for fundamental research and scientific breakthoughs, but the vast majority of engineers needed for everyday design, development, and manufacturing support roles require far more apprenticeship and co-op sessions. Too many engineers start as designers without having a clue how their parts will be made. Therefore, they do not design for manufacture, cost or quality.
March 31, 2006 7:26 AMWe'll continue to see reduced interest in engineering and science as a career choice if our kids (and their parents) are more excited about their extracurricular activities than they are about their schoolwork. Everyone complains that their kids don't have time for all that homework, but my foreign friends had it the other way around when they grew up. It's no wonder they are receiving the majority of advanced degrees. They are more prepared and more focused on their studies. They are also very worried that their kids will not excel like they did because they've been "Westernized".
There is no shortcut to a technical career; it requires lots of homework. And I'm not sure our kids are willing to make that sacrifice anymore. It's not the teachers' fault. It starts with the parents. They and their kids just want to have fun.
I think we're dreaming that outsourcing our "low-tech, low-paid jobs" overseas will leave Americans with all the "high-tech, high-paid jobs". If we don't change our kids' focus, it will be the other way around.
March 31, 2006 7:47 AMIn a country where you are already branding salesmen as 'sale engineers' and recording technicians as 'recording engineers' and computer buffs as 'computer engineers' (in my time, we all were electronic engineers who designed computers), it seems there is little choice in accepting a four-, three- or two-year engineering curriculum for the so-called 'future engineering-oriented professionals'. After all, what's in name if the utilitary and monetary benefits of the upper empresarial and managerial class would always smell as sweet.
On one hand, you have the demographic explosion striving for more available opportunities for the ever-increasing technically oriented individuals and, the specialized jobs industry, which are pushing to convert the common citizen with little or no college education into a 'media'-glorified employee by offering mediocre salaries but well-'branded' positions which, after all, just serve the purpose of the controlling capitalistic establishment few and not the intellectual well being of the nation's many in general. That's why, day by day, the less-educated and poorly remunerated so-called 'engineers' are taking away the jobs of the better-educated and -paid counterparts.
On the other hand, we have in our hands the painful reality of the ever-decreasing social, cultural, intellectual and scientific values which make not only a nation strong, but also its citizens as well. It's no secret that the qualitative criteria is being displaced by the more 'fun-seeking' kid-parent mentallity (to paraphrase one of above commenters) and, as result, the once venerable values of academic virtuosity in early American institutions, schools and colleges have been downgraded to a more mediocre and popular counterpart which will, if allowed to continue, serve no other purpose than to render an otherwise strong nation into a weaker one. Perhaps the day when a new scientific entity dedicated to idleness and uselesness is established, we will be seeing more 'bum engineers' with genuine diplomas and with better paid jobs than true engineers. Absurd -- you may say -- but do we not now have entities that sell college diplomas for a few dollars on the Web, where you can become a PhD'er overnight?
I would, after such a long dissertation on a rather simple question, be tempted to remain silent and let the ongoing degradation of values take its course, but for the sake of a better academically oriented society, my answer is a definitive: NO! If anything at all must be done to improve the engineering profession, then increase (not decrease) the curriculum, both in quality and quantity, and stop putting 'fun kids' to design space ships or whatever other other inventions you might think of. By decreasing the curriculum, you will have in the long-run many more engineering graduates without jobs (We are now witnessing this phenomena,), because 'the offer exceeds the demand'.
March 31, 2006 3:21 PMNobody can micromanage the children in their family beyond about 12 years of age; we can be a friend first and a mentor also. If they are focused by then, you just have to realize what their focus is and promote it.
I wanted my oldest daughter to be an Industrial Engineer, but her focus was being the ALPHA dog over the group where she worked. She has always been able to get that due to smart and hard work. She bought and paid for her bachelor's degree and then kicked it up a knotch to get her MBA in business. If my daughter can do it, so can anybody else once they get their focus. Don't insult her by telling her she needs a few more years beating the books or in the trenches. In fact, if she does, that is where you will likely find her.
Focus has got to be capitalizing on your best skills and what interests you so you don't burn out before you reach your goals.
Her real focus was to own her own company, and she now has the skills and ability to do that.
March 31, 2006 5:36 PMOne cannot sufficiently learn engineering in four years. Even a lifetime dedicated to learning engineering cannot be enough. Well, we can decide to agree that four years is fairly enough to lay an engineering foundation on which one would build until one dies.
April 4, 2006 9:28 AMThe (ideal) length of the engineering curriculum is only one aspect of an intertwined, convoluted but critical issue facing the practicing engineers today.
I've worked for government engineers of various types since the early seventies, and several trends have become evident amongst them:
* Many (gov't) engineers have become so removed from engineering over time, that they tend to want to avoid the technical aspects as much as possible, not wanting to revisit their (academic angst?) if at all possible...
* Many (gov't) engineers want to be hands-off project/division/department managers and contract-out as many technical specialties as possible, in order to better insulate themselves from possible faltering, in this atmosphere of downsizing and outsourcing (i.e.: they are more concerned with saying "I can avoid getting let go", rather than the more traditional, "I can fix/improve/reclaim that"...)
* Top universities primarily operate towards generating very few future researchers, (i.e.: PhDs), and not towards training effective practitioners. Thus, upon graduation, the newly issued (apprentice researchers) tend to be redirected towards operational productivity, with less and less relevant preparation during their "education"…
* Top universities can typically charge a first year, non-resident, foreign student some 10 times the tuition amount that they could charge a (domestic) resident student. Therefore, foreign students are more economically (preferable?) students to be graduated…
So, the more relevant question would seem to be: "Why does not American (industry) 'build' a more viable alternative to traditional university (education?) of engineers?" Or, more specifically, "Why do not the major American construction/engineering/other firms form a non-profit (school) for the expressed purpose of developing the best engineering (practitioners) in the most optimal amount of time?" ... in order to provide more capable entrants to the American engineering work force, while there is still time…
Yes, of course.
Four-year period is a long one; just ask a prisoner. The important thing is the course management and the time management. One can learn all the engineering basics and theories even in a shorter time. The earlier you get exposed to the professional world, the better it is. The real knowledge comes out of the experience which comes when one faces the real-world problems.
June 7, 2006 7:55 AM
