<p>[Views:</a> Engineering Flexibility - Inside Higher Ed](<a href=“http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2009/12/04/eibeck]Views:”>http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2009/12/04/eibeck)</p>
<p>As the parent of an undergrad engineering student, I could not agree more!</p>
<p>I think having that as another option would be a great idea. I still think there should be programs for students who want it hard, though.</p>
<p>I’m a CS major - not engineering, but close enough for this discussion - and I’m a double major in Physics. It’s hard, but we shouldn’t be making programs easier, we should be making people smarter. There should be plenty of hours available for students who want to do more than just the engineering core.</p>
<p>I bet the same people complaining are the ones taking 12 hours per semester. Give me a break.</p>
<p>I don’t see how making students study more subjects will cut down on the work, unless they seriously water down the content. That would be too bad. Doing a lot of different things poorly isn’t very worthwhile.</p>
<p>Currently, there are two approaches to professional degree training:</p>
<p>(1) Major in anything as an undergraduate, as long as you meet certain prerequisites. Then get a professional degree in grad school. For example, this is the approach typically used in medicine or law.</p>
<p>(2) Get your professional degree as an undergraduate, by studying it to the exclusion of nearly everything else. Graduate degrees are optional. This is the approach typically used in engineering and nursing.</p>
<p>Engineering is not going to abandon approach (2), but there is slow movement to add approach (1) as an alternate track. Historically, the professional engineering degree was an ABET-accredited BS, but ABET plans to start accrediting MS degrees as well. So prospective engineers will have more choices.</p>
<p>Architecture has already gone down this road. You can still get a professional, NAAB-accredited B.Arch. degree at the undergraduate level. But you also can get a regular B.A./B.S., followed by a professional, NAAB-accredited M.Arch. degree at the graduate level. Both the B.Arch. and M.Arch. tracks are valid for prospective architects.</p>
<p>If you couldn’t get a professional degree as an undergrad in Engineering, I think enrollment would go down drastically. I didn’t consider med school for this reason. </p>
<p>But perhaps doing both is the best solution; like the architects…have a seperate Masters degree that’s eqv. to undergrad. Then undergrads in buissness and stuff will then have an option to pursue engineering if it suddenly dawns like a good idea to them.</p>
<p>What better way to encourage more low income students into engineering than by requiring they go to school for more years and charge more money!</p>
<p>Personally, I think a General Engineering degree isn’t a bad idea as long as you aren’t taking simplified versions of classes. Maybe require you to take a ton of sophomore-level engineering classes and get a “concentration” in a certain engineering discipline by taking a minor’s worth of junior/senior level classes.</p>
<p>It seems to me that the author mostly wants more people to learn critical thinking skills associated with an engineering curriculum. Why not just try to introduce more classes of that nature into the other curricula?</p>
<p>so her fat daughter decided NOT to major in BIOE.
Does that mean we have to revamp the program and make french literature a part of the curriculum, ruining the experience for everyone who is truly passionate about the field?</p>
<p>The author says that transfer students typically finish up their undergrad in 4 years starting from the time of transfer, in addition to the previous 2-3 years before the transfer.</p>
<p>Is this really the case?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This proposal wouldn’t be simplified versions. What it’s doing is taking the current 4 year curriculum and expanding it to 6 years and having students take more courses in other areas. Same courses. Same content.</p>
<p>This proposal would definitely be a good idea as an alternative route. What’s the downside to having another option.</p>
<p>
If you can pursue a professional career in medicine with an undergraduate degree in business or English – and you can, provided that you meet certain prerequisites as an undergrad – then why not offer a similar path for a career in engineering? </p>
<p>Prospective neurosurgeons don’t get specialized professional training at the undergraduate level. Why couldn’t prospective civil engineers do the same thing?</p>
<p>The reason I like engineering is because, unlike most degrees, it has you actually learn something specific. I would hate to see the engineering curriculum ruined by making all engineering majors required to learn french or somesuch instead of engineering. </p>
<p>Also, I find people over-estimate how much time engineering takes. Sure, it may take more than your average major, but all the engineering students I know have plenty of time to be involved in many activities, pick up minors, AND do well academically. If engineering takes so much time for you that you dont have enough time to persue your other interests, you shouldn’t major in it.</p>
<p>
Why? Why does it have to be that way?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It would be only an option, just like architecture. Keep the current format, but introduce a second option to make the graduate degree the professional degree.</p>
<p>I think it is a pretty terrible idea to be honest. If you water down the current curriculum to allow more humanities, then the graduates become less competent. As a solution to that, the author proposed making the entry point to a job in engineering be a professional masters, which would allow the same coursework as a current B.S. but stretched over 6 years and 2 degrees, which is also a bad idea in my opinion. Then people with an M.S. or M.Eng. would only be as competent as current B.S. holders are, and if, in this plan, someone who went for the traditional route instead of the new one wanted to get an M.S., they would just be relearning the same things. On top of that, telling people they have 6 years of school before getting a job is going to really hurt the ability to attract people who aren’t as gung ho about it as others.</p>
<p>Personally, I think the better option would be to extend the current curriculum by a semester or two at the most and standardize it. You can’t have two curriculum paths. It just doesn’t work. You either lengthen all degrees or don’t lengthen any of them.</p>
<p>Honestly, I got my mechanical engineering degree in 4 years and, in so doing, had time to go to every football home game and several away games, every basketball home game and several away games and plenty of parties, bars, movies and other things and I still passed with high enough grades to get into a good grad school and start working on a Ph.D. Seriously, it isn’t as bad as people say it is. Most of the time people who spend tons of time working are really just bad at time management. There are some exceptions, but that is the general case.</p>
<p>The real issue is that a lot of people prefer to major in something that is easier and nearly as lucrative. If you want to attract more people to the major, then raise the average salaries of engineers to more accurately reflect the work that went into getting the degree.</p>
<p>Well we can’t dumb down the curriculum. I mean engineers are responsible for people lives. The “doctors kill people one at a time while engineers kill their’s in bunches”, or however it goes, sticks out to me here. Dumb down engineering and people will die. Engineers HAVE to be the best of the best. </p>
<p>Approving grad programs like med students is a bad idea. I mean why spend an extra 4 years for undergrad if I’m only get the average 50-60k a year job. I’m around a lot of guys who are in dentistry and they spend 4 years in undergrad doing nothing related to dentistry. IMO they wasted those 4 years but it doesn’t matter because they come out of school rolling in money. In the end those 4 years of undergrad are justified. If engineering payed as well as dentistry then I would have no problem spending the extra time and tuition costs for it. Extending the time needed for an engineering degree just isn’t worth it.</p>
<p>I feel the problem lies within the fact that engineering simply isn’t attractive unless your one of those people who love, not like but absolutley love, designing things. As I pointed out above engineers MUST be the cream of the crop or people will simply die. These standards must be set high or we will have someone, who is not qualified, designing the next airplane… there’s 300 deaths easy.<br>
So naturally the average person will not typically pursue engineering. They wont survive the rigorous curriculum/standard that guarantees our safety as citizens. And if they did decide to pursue it anyway, the 50k job isn’t really worth the amount they have to bust their butt when they can try other routes like buisness (lil stab there… hehe) that require less work and higher potential.
And those that can buckle up for the rigors of engineering do the same thing. They can make just as much while putting forth less effort.
Its a fundamental problem. Engineering just isn’t attractive. If it payed as nicely as doctors then that would change. I know a lot of us don’t like to think money rules our life decisions but coming out of high school it does. If engineering made a couple 100k then MANY more people, would fight through the work.</p>
<p>The ONLY way I see engineering prospering with the current conditions is if our society as a whole saw engineering as a glorious or sweet job. I mean the asian cultures put HEAVY emphasis on education and Guess who makes the most engineers? Asia, duh. If the U.S. didn’t put so much attention into sports and actors then we would be WAY better off. I love my sports, actually obsessed, just as much as the next guy but if scientist, mathmaticians, and the like were considered celebrities like Mr Faraday was in his day then there would be SOOOO many more engineers. And we all know more engineers means more advancements and more advancements mean a better society.</p>
<p>
How are graduates less competent if they are learning the same material?</p>
<p>
Engineering will have to use the architecture degree model. People with a B.Eng (professional bachelor’s degree) who intend to pursue further studies will get a M.Eng II (similar to M.Arch II). This M.Eng II would be the equivalent of today’s MS in Engineering. M.Eng I (similar to M.Arch I) would only be pursued by those without a professional engineering bachelor’s degree. These would essentially be today’s upper level undergrad courses. Don’t get confused by the nomenclature; a M.Eng today will not be the same as an M.Eng in the proposed system. Based on your post, it appears you are under the impression that all the graduate level material being learned today will be eliminated. Obviously it won’t be.</p>
<p>
Not if this proposal is only an option and the current system is maintained.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why not? It works in other fields.</p>
<p>
Who’s dumbing down the curriculum?</p>
<p>
It would only be an option. Why force someone to decide their career at the age of 18? What if someone decided to become an engineer at 21 or 22? Why should they have to get a 2nd bachelor’s degree and spend 8 years in college instead of 6 or 7 just because they made a life decision a few years later than others?</p>
<p>
A non-engineering bachelor’s degree and a master’s of engineering would take 6 to 7 years. A non-engineering bachelor’s degree and a 2nd bachelor’s degree in engineering would take 8 years total. The student would actually be saving time.</p>
<p>I think the ‘kinder, gentler’ alternate path would be fine.</p>
<p>But I would hope that true techies, the kind who would rather die than take a lot of humanities, etc., would continue to have the option to obtain a terminal qualifying 4 year degree in engineering. What percent of job openings would you guess are for focused techies vrs. the well rounded type? My guess is that most companies want the focused engineer for entry level jobs, and will allow a few folks with additional talents to rise in management.</p>
<p>
That is just it, they WOULDN’T be learning the same material. If you want to fit more humanities in without making the degree longer, then you have to sacrifice some in the technical areas, which is something that engineers can ill afford to do.</p>
<p>
I am not saying it will be eliminated, but it will be… “pushed back.” By that I mean the masters will now have the elective classes that engineers now take as seniors plus of of the very basic graduate classes, so the real meaty courses that most masters students take would then be pushed back to an even higher level for people who want to go beyond that new masters.</p>
<p>Also, you just said that M.Eng II would be the same as today’s M.S., so why not just keep it as an M.S.? After all, we already have an M.Eng which is just a little more than what is being described here as a form of professional degree which is generally considered a lower degree than M.S. (though no less respectable or important, just a different path, so to speak).</p>
<p>Rather than create all these new options, why not use nearly the same thing that is already in place. This sounds an awful lot like getting a B.S. in some ET field and then going on and getting an M.Eng. instead of the normal B.S. in engineering and going on to M.S.</p>
<p>Actually, if you look at places with Engineering Technology degrees, that is basically what we are talking about here. A curriculum with all the hands-on and cool stuff and some of the theoretical stuff that teaches you enough to function as a low-level engineer or engineering technician and if you want to get into higher job functions, you get a higher degree that finishes up your technical/theoretical curriculum. If anything, we already have nearly exactly what people here are talking about, it just needs a tiny bit of tweaking and some more publicity.</p>
<p>Still, the program that is described here sticks out in my mind for one thing: this professional engineering degree is NOT going to be robust enough to make the bearer a full blown engineer. It would definitely need to be a distinct degree from the traditional B.S. because graduates of each program would have distinctly different capabilities. Again, this sounds remarkably like current ET degrees.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If they did their first degree in something like physics or chemistry or something like that, there is at least some chance that they wouldn’t need a second bachelors degree. If they majored in English or something, then I sure as hell want them to have to get a second bachelor’s right from the beginning because the degrees are so different and personally, for the people who design my planes/bridges/cars/buildings/pharmaceuticals/etc, I sure as hell want them to have all the basics down pat and be fully educated from the ground up. The last thing I want is for some clown who fudged his way through his “professional degree” making a mistake that leads to a bunch of deaths.</p>
<p>On the one hand, yeah it would be nice to have an easy way to change careers a few years later like that. On the other hand, engineering is a profession where you really do need to be competent to do it most of the time. So you made a mistake when you were 18 and majored in marketing and now 10 years later you want to go get into engineering but you want an easy way in since you already have a bachelors? Tough luck. Even an innocent “mistake” like that has consequences. If you want to be an engineer, you need to start from the beginning unless your first degree was in something that would already have had you taking the same foundational courses.</p>
<p>Maybe I am coming across as harsh, but engineers often indirectly have a lot of lives in their hands, and if they don’t have the full benefit of a full engineering education, they really have no business having that kind of responsibility.</p>
<p>Again, I did it in 4 years and had tons of free time as long as I didn’t fall behind and I didn’t putz around. I don’t really see why everyone makes a big deal about how you can’t have a life as an engineer. It is simply not true.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not sure we’re on the same page. The alternative option that I’m supporting WILL be making the route to become an engineer longer. The bachelor’s degree becomes irrelevant to becoming an engineer and the professional master’s degree is what makes a student qualified to become an engineer. That would mean 6 to 7 years of schooling for this option. </p>
<p>
Yes. Why is that a problem for people who pursue this alternative option? The current system we have now will be left intact. </p>
<p>
The nomenclature is irrelevant. Also, to clarify, when I said M.S., I was referring to all current master’s degrees (including both professional and research oriented degrees). </p>
<p>
What’s already in place makes it difficult to change academic interests. This alternative option allows people in bachelor degree programs unrelated to engineering to pursue engineering.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The exact curriculum for this alternative option hasn’t been discussed in detail, but my support for this assumes the “M.Eng I degree” covers all the basics and the student wouldn’t be missing anything that they would’ve learned in the rigorous “B.Eng” degree. You don’t think 2 or 3 years is enough time to cover all the material? Keep in mind that the “M.Eng I” does not have any general education requirements. If you’re going for civil engineering, you take only courses related to civil engineering (including the fundamental courses).</p>
<p>In summary, the alternative option would cover the same amount of material as the current system. Think of it as stretching the current 4 year program to 6 or 7 years and adding more courses in areas unrelated to engineering. It allows students to explore other academic interests without committing to engineering at 19, while still maintaining the same engineering course requirements as current engineering graduates. </p>
<p>Again, to make it clear, a 4 year “general engineering” degree would not qualify someone to become an engineer. If a person decides to get this degree, he or she would NEED to get a graduate degree in order to become an engineer. This is similar to architecture, where a BS in Architecture does not allow one one to become an architect. Students need a B.Arch or an M.Arch I.</p>
<p>
What percentage of job openings would there be for the well rounded type engineer versus the ones without an engineering degree? It’s those people who would benefit from this option, not those who are currently engineering majors (who would most likely be pursuing the terminal 4 year degree anyway).</p>
<p>"The author says that transfer students typically finish up their undergrad in 4 years starting from the time of transfer, in addition to the previous 2-3 years before the transfer.</p>
<p>Is this really the case? "</p>
<p>
The current versions of M.S. and M.Eng should NEVER be rolled up into the same degree under any circumstances, as they are entirely different. If anything, under your plan, the current M.Eng should become M.Eng II.</p>
<p>
So what is the point in anyone ever getting a B.S. in engineering then rather than just getting a bachelors in some cupcake subject to pad their GPA and then going to some top flight school for their “M.Eng I”? Doesn’t that completely negate the use of majoring engineering in the first place (or at least nearly negate)?</p>