<p>A traditional engineering curriculum is an ABET-accredited program, with a major in a sub-field of
engineering (eg mechanical, electrical, civil,…). In my day anyway, that’s what most “normal” engineering employers expected when they went hiring BS engineers. That curriculum is pretty standard across schools, and requires relatively a lot of engineering courses. So consequently less room for liberal arts courses. Though still some.</p>
<p>Schools that offer generic “engineering science” degrees do not meet ABET standards for engineering training, So they can allocate course requirements however they want to. Which is great, but students will obviously
have less training in engineering. When I left the field, the sentiment was BS employers wanted actually more training in engineering, and some were pushing for it to be a five year program.</p>
<p>My feeling is that most grads of these 'engineering science" type programs really don’t plan to become engineeers.
Many that want to actually do something related to engineering go on to get advanced degrees and become basically applied scientists. Others that actually do want to be “real” engineers go to a Masters program someplace afterwards so they get the required additional engineering training.</p>
<p>Limitations in engineering courses can actually alter what type of engineer one might choose to become.
I would check how many courses are offered in the major subfields- say civil engineering, for example- at each program. Look at the registrar’s list of courses actually given each semester, not just the course catalog which may list courses that are actually given only rarely.</p>
<p>Either approach may be preferable, for a given individual, but you can’t have it both ways. If you need to have more of everything than either approach provides for, you can either :i) be virtually forced into a grad program in your major field; Or ii) you can take additional liberal arts courses on the side, during the course of your life.</p>