JoeJoe05

This is the one thing I disagree with. It doesn't "open more doors" it's pretty much your only option starting out as an EET. An EE can do any job as well as an EET if not better and the EE already has the knowledge of designing new products where as the EET will probably have to receive those types of skills on the job.

I guarantee you if an EE applies for the same "hands on" job as an EET the EE will be seen as the better choice by degree (not taking other factors into play).

jasper60103

JoeJoe,
I've interviewed many new EE grads and I never met one who claimed to have experience "designing new products" in school (as you say). I agree you have design "projects" in school, but its all theory until you get a job. Also, its unlikely academia will purchase tools or licenses for various types of design tools used in the real world.
jasper

weldon

To the OP: As a degreed engineer who also works with some ETs (I actually am sitting next one right now), believe me I have no axe to grind or hidden agenda. But, for your son's/daughter's sake please don't be fooled into thinking the two types of degrees are basically equivalent, either in terms of training or in the job market. They just aren't. Of course many ETs can work their way into careers that are "just as good" (whatever that means) as degreed engineers can have. But the key words are "work their way into". In many cases ETs will be limited in where they can get in the door, and in many cases they will need to start out in less desirable positions and then "prove" themselves.
On the other side of the coin, I think some of the misconceptions displayed in this string about the work of degreed engineers is laughable. To hear them tell it you would think that the average engineer is chained to his desk all day solving twelfth order differential equations, has to be shaken out of his or her high-end conceptual stupor so he can go to the john, and doesn't know a wrench from a mallet. This picture just isn't true; and it's much easier for an engineer who is inclined towards the practical to learn that stuff on the job than it is to develop technical depth in an ET who is workiing on the shop floor- the degreed engineer just has more flexibility this way.
Finally, try on this logic. This string has some competing descriptions of what ET programs are like with respect to full-fledged engineering programs. If you are contemplating a situation where the two programs are very similar in quality and requirements, if you are going to make the effort in the first place, why not go for the engineering degree? it really doesn't make much sense to go for the ET degree on the basis it's just about as good as the engineering degree, does it? And, if an ET program is of poor quality, why bother at all?
fathero5, you doubt your company is the exception in preferring ETs over engineers. Well, you shouldn't doubt it. Maybe the key is in what you say afterwards, i.e., that your company "utilizes and installs other peoples' equipment" and that the vast number of your employees are there to "make it work once it shows up on a truck". what you describe sounds like difficult work, which requires intelligence and talent, but by your own description it is a limited area of the entire field of engineering and technology. a degreed engineer has access to this kind of role, plus a lot more.

father05

Wow, just had a long post vaporized, but I will try again.

Weldon, I was reall ytaking a Devil's advocate position. Outside of a quip from Ken285 and aibarr's postings, there has been very little discussion until jasper. Searching the ET threads finds they usually die in 4 or 5 posts. This is the longest and most productive I've seen. And I certainly don't think most engineers sit chained to a desk dreaming up new stuff all day. I do think that the average CC student on here is the best and most ambitous, and I do think that a much higher than average percentage on here desire to be desgining and building on the cutting edge. I just don't think that's where most engineering jobs are.

My company is a metals producer. There are 2 or 3 major producers of our equipment in the world, none on this continent. So when we order a system for $50-700 or 800 million dollars, we have lots of people working on it from designing it with the maker's engineers to installing and making it go after it gets here. Our latest project is replacing a system 60 years old. So how many engineers are working at the 3 companies that make this stuff, and how many are working downstream at the hundreds of worldwide metals producers, using it, making it go, and keeping it going? I'd guess it's 100 fold downstream at least. Take that to cars, washing machines, whatever. A team of 100 or 300 or whatever designs a car. The car is made in plants around the world and assembled somewhere else. For every guy designing the car, there are dozens more implementing it, making the systems that build it work. I just don't see our use of engineers, that is in a lot of jobs that could be ET jobs as unusual. It's just there aren't a lot of BSETs compared to BSEs, so obviously most of the jobs are going to be held by BSEs.

In our case, my DD is looking at EE. What may be her best chance to be able to go affordably only offers a few ET degrees though, EET being one of them. The curriculum looks good, the student:faculty ratio is good, and over half the EET profs are PhD EEs. They have 100% placement the past few years, put people in grad school for MSEE, and have no grad students gobbling up profs time when Sr Projects and research come. Their brochure does a nice job of selling it. We have certainly seen other schools where the department chair was a MSEE and the coursework was not as strong on the math/physics end. However even at a less rigorous EET program we discounted, the first year classes include:

Electical Circuits 1
EC Lab 1
ET Orientation
EC 2
EC Lab 2
Digital Electronics
DE Lab
Experimental Methods for ET

I am sure you understand why I am skeptical when another poster writes that 3rd year EETs are just turning on a light bulb at his school and excited to do so when this is the first year at a not so rigorous EET program. It sends up a red flag for everything else s/he has posted.

We're visiting the stronger EET program next month. We'll know better then where my D stands, but thanks to you weldon and jasper for chiming in with some real world experience.

4Truth

Father05,

Just want to thank you for keeping this thread alive with excellent posts. Your input was very helpful. It is a shame that there is such a stigma attached to BSET. What the engineers don't realize though is that they are in danger of shooting themselves in the foot -- creating their own stigma. That of arrogance.

I think there is a place in the world for both engineers and technologists just as there is for Doctors and PAs. Accepting the understanding that the salary for an ET may always be a little under that of EE's potential (which my son does not mind. He would still be making quite a decent living... He doesn't need to make 100 grand), it seems to me that in these times of troubled economy, that could actually play in the favor of hiring an ET over an EE. I believe the tide may be turning and employers may be beginning to see the beauty of having ETs on board. They can get the job done but with a little less pay than Eddie Engineer requires.... Am I way off with that thought, or do you think there is some validity to it?

Perhaps the stigma is not coming from the job force but rather only from those engineers who feel threatened by them....?

rheidzan

That logic doesn't make sense. See Weldon's post above... If engineers are threatened and have hidden agendas. We'd tell you all to go to ETs, saturate the market, and degrade the value of ETs.

weldon

4Truth: I'm afraid you may be drawing some wrong conclusions here, to your own detriment. I think my own post, and those of some others here, regarding the merits of the different degrees and career paths attempt to do nothing more than give you what YOU asked for, i.e., an honest assessment of the situation. If you don't like the answers, you're hurting no one but yourself by attributing it all to "stigmatization" and feeling "threatened" (and, by the way, where did the "Eddie Engineer" stuff come from? Why the hostility? Are you interested in other people's advice and opinions, ornot?)
In point of fact, ET programs are good for many individuals, companies, and ultimately the economy. I was thinking about this way back when I was in engineering school (many moons ago), for the following reason: some (by no means all) of my fellow engineering students really had no inclination or talent for technology. They were there because they were good at math, and saw the degree as some sort of stepping stone for other things. Meanwhile, a lot of talented and committed "techies" (some of whom were my friends) were being denied an engineering education just because they weren't good enough math students, and this was wrong.
However, let's not twist our logic here. If you are motivated by technology, AND you can handle the math, you can benefit greatly by going for the engineering degree, and you will be a formidable professional. Hands-on talent is not a draw-back for an engineer, it is a significant advantage for his career prospects. Theoretical knowledge and hands-on ability are not mutually exclusive strengths, as you seem to want to continue to believe. But go ahead and think what you want about me, believe me my only intention was to help, you are welcome to listen or not

father05

weldon, I wonder, and since you are out of school only months, maybe you're not comfortable answering, but how many engineers do you think that are out in the workforce for 3-5 years are doing what they dreamed of doing? Or are the still working their way to the top. You have stated that engineers are always going to better at X than ETs. But are engineers doing what they want, or are they doing ETs jobs? I guess that's my question. How many jobs being held by engineers could be done by ETs and have performance at the same level?

For many engineers, management winds up being the advancement path. Is an xE with a MBA that much better than a xET with an MBA? The guy who manages my chem lab wouldn't know what an XRF was if you dropped it in his office, but he's still in charge of them. Opinions, with some factual backup besides "everyone at my school said" - good, bad or ugly.

JoeJoe05

weldon said he was in school "many moons ago" not months. But anyways he's got the most down to earth responses I've heard so far.

To father: If all engineering jobs could be done by ET's then everyone would be doing ET as its clearly an easier option. Industries hire engineers for a reason. As far as I'm concerned an engineer can do anything an ET grad can do and more but definitely not the other way around.

An engineer with an MBA vs an ET with an MBA? Honesty that probably won't matter because both have had experience in the field and have good background knowledge. Once they get the MBA they are on equal grounds in a management position.

weldon

father05, I don't believe what I'm reading in your last post. Who said I'm out of achool "only months"??? I've been a practicing engineer for almost 25 YEARS. And I NEVER stated "that engineers are always going to better (sic) at X than ETs". And I also never even VAGUELY referred to anything "everyone at my school said". Don't put words in my mouth. What I've said is that in general ETs are more limited in where and how they can get in the door as compared to engineers. Engineers in general have more career options, including senior-level technologists (senior engineers, proncipal engineers, and chief engineering roles) and, of course, in hard-core design environments.
Please let's have some perspective. Many engineers, as you've hinted, are not performing their dream jobs. They would either like to be involved in more cutting-edge technical stuff, OR follow a management or other leadership route. The problem of course is that by definition there are only so many "leadership" roles to go around in any organization, and the hard technical tasks mostly go to the more proven people. Where I work, an ET could in many cases (say half? I don't know) be as effective as a degreed engineer. But the point is, they don't get the chance because my company PREFERS TO HIRE ENGINEERS for these jobs. As I said in some previous string, most ETs we hire are limited to jobs like test engineer, manufacturing methods, production facilitator, or a quality control function.
When you talk about an MBA and business leadership, you are really changing the discussion. Of course you can get an MBA with an ET degree and go over to the management side. You can also do that with a Psychology or English Lit or Basketweaving degree and skip the engineering altogether, since at this point you are following a diffferent career path based on your individual desires and initiative. "...he wouldn't know an XRF if you dropped it in his office, but he's still in charge of them..." so what's your point? Haven't you wandered a little far off the original question?
I find this discourse particularly frustrating because it is "4Truth" and you who have solicited others' opinions, when you clearly have already made up your minds on the issue and are most interested in defending your going-in position. . So, fine, enroll your kids in ET programs with my blessing. As I HAVE said (as opposed to what I NEVER said), and ET degree can be a very good choice for many people.

ExplorerCY

ET: limited roles
Engineer: ET roles + a lot more
...
if you could go to school for either one, why not pick the one that will be more benefitial? choosing to be a nurse if getting an MD was just as easy would ridiculous...

rheidzan

This is what weldon said earlier.... how does one not understand this?

4Truth

Weldon,

Sorry for the impression I left you with Eddie Engineer. 'Certainly not intending to come across hostile. I only used that name for alliteration purposes -- sounded better than John Doe Engineer. If you will look back over your posts, I think one might would detect possibly some edginess coming from you. At least there are some assumptions going on. I appreciate your comments and input -- everyone's here, and am taking into consideration all points made. Our plan all along has been for our son to start in engineering, but we just wanted to have a back up plan should he not find it hands-on enough for him or too unenjoyable in other ways. We certainly see the validity of having an engineering degree -- the flexibility it will offer and more opened doors. We just wanted to get some more insight on how technologists are viewed. As Father05 said, I think we pretty much got our answer.

I still would like to hear before this thread ends though, someone's response to my question about employers possibly finding it more favorable in a troubled economy to hire technologists over engineers...

Again, thanks for you contributions.

Bosque

If you already have a foregone conclusion about what you want your kid to do, why are you asking for opinions on here? Most of the responses I have seen do not seem to be insidious in intent; they are simply trying to tell you the truth. xET is by no means a worthless degree and you can most assuredly get a job with it. However, with an xE degree you can do pretty much everything an xET does and more. You are less limited with an xE degree.

As long as you and, much more importantly, your kid understand this, pick whichever you want. Just realize that they are not the same.

JoeJoe05

Well lets look at this this way. You are basically saying there that ET's get paid significantly less than engineers. Now lets also look at this...engineers in this country do not seem to have a problem finding jobs. At least in my area, if you have an engineering degree, you should have a job. The economy does not seem to have had an impact on employers hiring engineers. An employer knows they are getting what they pay for out of an engineer.

So if you can get paid more, have more career options, and have better chances of getting a job you want. Why not just do engineering over ET?