<p>That’s true. But even without ABET accreditation, “bioengineeering” should entail large number of courses due to its interdisciplinary nature (if it’s what I think it is). The foundation courses alone would include a series of math courses (through diff eqns), a programming course, 1 year of general chem/phys/organic chem + bio (since it’s bioengineering), and at least one biochemistry course. Then you still have the advance bio and core engineering classes. It’s been said that a biomedical/bioengineering degree at the bachelor level is not enough because it involves so many different areas. People often get a MS in it. Of course, if it’s just molecular bio, then it’s different. However, I wouldn’t add “engineering” so casually if it isn’t really one.</p>
<p>I guess the question is how much “core engineering” is required for molecular engineering. I wouldn’t think it would be as much as BME (biomedical engineering) which is indeed a wide-ranging field. </p>
<p>meow360, is that true? If so, this discussion has veered off course.</p>
<p>Please read the report whose link I posted. The folks behind this initiative are classic basic science types. They are advocating for new facilities and faculty for what they feel is a hot area of science. They are not advocating for a wholesale change in approach</p>
<p>Most importantly, they state this would not be an ABET certified program.</p>
<p>PLEASE FOLKS, READ THE REPORT BEFORE TAKING OFF ON FLIGHTS OF FANCY. (the reporter obviously did not…)</p>
<p>Perhaps you didn’t read the following I wrote:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>^Dude, that article did talk about degree granting programs and mentioned models for the curriculum at other engineering schools but didn’t address whether the core would still fit in. By the way, you seem rather uptight about this.</p>