ITT Technical Institute? Really?

Professional Engineer & PE Exam Forum

Help Support Professional Engineer & PE Exam Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Matt-NM

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 29, 2008
Messages
165
Reaction score
0
So there are now a few in my company who have successfully managed to con management into granting them title changes from technicians to engineers, based on their 4-year engineering technology degree from the above mentioned, non-accredited institution. Personally, I feel this as a slap in the face when the rest of us got our degrees from universities and our diplomas actually say "engineering". Management had me look at the curriculm one time when they were facing this dilema. They are no where even close. Apples to oranges. The national laboratories we support would never in a million years consider such a thing. Funny that we do.

Does anybody else see this taking place? What do you think? (Just a little morning rant before I try to get some actual work done).

 
So there are now a few in my company who have successfully managed to con management into granting them title changes from technicians to engineers, based on their 4-year engineering technology degree from the above mentioned, non-accredited institution. Personally, I feel this as a slap in the face when the rest of us got our degrees from universities and our diplomas actually say "engineering". Management had me look at the curriculm one time when they were facing this dilema. They are no where even close. Apples to oranges. The national laboratories we support would never in a million years consider such a thing. Funny that we do.
Does anybody else see this taking place? What do you think? (Just a little morning rant before I try to get some actual work done).

To respond in one word NO.

But I am sure there are some very smart guys that could use the DeVry or ITT and get by o.k.

I know my first job out of college I sure as heck didn't need my Engineering Degree much.

That being said, if they don't have the goods it will be obvious quite quickly, I work in consulting so really having your license is the big deal anyway and or being very good at certain analysis or design.

Really the worst thing that can happen is that your customers/clients expose these guys and your company looks silly.

 
To have an engineering technology degree and be considered an engineer is one thing (there are several "technology" degrees out there that are even ABET accredited).

However, the ITT Tech does NOT have regional accreditation, which puts it right up there with Phoenix Online in terms of credibility.

 
At my former job, designing conveyor systems, you didn't even need a college degree to be called an engineer. There were guys with ITT diplomas and less (only HS diplomas) being called engineers and doing mechanical design work on stuff that could mangle or kill people if designed improperly. Then again, that was the type of place that called their salesmen "Sales Engineers". I think there were 3 other engineers in the department that had an engineering degree besides myself, then all 3 of the vice presidents had engineering degrees. I was one of two PEs in the company, and the only one with a masters degree and a PE.

Now that I work at an A/E firm, if you don't have a PE, you are a graduate engineer, and if you don't have a degree that would make you eligible to sit for the PE, then you are designer.

 
I thought that unless a person had a P.E. license, their job title couldn't say "Engineer". Or if they are an E.I., then they can be titled "Engineer Intern" or "Assistant Engineer". Isn't that what most registration laws say?

 
It'd really chap my hide if an ITT/DeVry grad was hired/promoted to an "engineer" position in my company, especially in the current economic climate with many good graduate engineers out of work. The other divisions of my company do occasionally hire new engineers with an Engineering Technology degree from an ABET-accredited school. That's a different story than hiring someone with a degree that isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

I should note that my organization operates under industrial exemption. I am a graduate engineer and my business cards say "Mechanical Engineer" on them. A few years ago we hired a guy with a physics degree as an electrical engineer, and that raised some eyebrows (he's since gotten a master's in EE). Generally if someone's title is "Mechanical Engineer", that means s/he has at least a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering from an ABET-accredited school.

It rubs me the wrong way that in the US, our "Field Engineers" generally never made it past high school, much less have anything resembling an engineering degree. They are on the whole extremely talented and knowledgeable about our industry, but they are not engineers and shouldn't have the title (IMO). Contrast with Canada, where engineering licensure is far more widespread across the profession. There our field engineers either have a PEng or are not officially called "field engineers". I'm cool with that (but a Canadian PEng is easier for a graduate engineer to get than a US PE).

I do know of a guy who went to ITT Tech for drafting - he got a series of great jobs with that degree, but as a draftsman. Unfortunately he was laid off and is now going for a complete career change because he can't find a new job in that field. He's applying to college and is now learning that virtually none of the credits from his associate's degree from ITT will be transferred because it's an unaccredited school. He spent a ton of money on an associate's degree that is worthless outside of a limited career path. I feel for the guy; he knew that ITT wasn't accredited, but he didn't realize the long-term impact of having an unaccredited degree. At least if he'd gone to community college instead, he'd have been able to transfer 2 years' worth of credits into a bachelor's program. Now he's starting from scratch.

Our employee-scholar program will not pay for an employee to take classes at any school unless it is regionally accredited. DeVry, ITT, and the diploma mills are out of the question unless the employee is paying out of pocket. Since the company foots the bill for employees to attend ANY regionally accredited school, there is little motivation for employees to go to ITT Tech instead of a community college or university.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Y'all might find this interesting:

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI:§73-13-1. Engineers must be licensed; use of words "graduate engineer".

In order to safeguard life, health, and property, and to promote the

public welfare, any person or firm in either public or private capacity

practicing or offering to practice engineering shall hereafter be required to

2

submit evidence that the person or firm is qualified so to practice

engineering and shall be licensed as hereinafter provided; and it shall be

unlawful for any person or firm to practice or to offer to practice in this

state, engineering, as defined in the provisions of Sections 73-13-1 through

73-13-45, or to use in connection with his name or otherwise assume, use, or

advertise any title or description tending to convey the impression that he is

a professional engineer, unless such person has been duly licensed under the

provisions of Sections 73-13-1 through 73-13-45. There is specifically reserved

to engineering graduates of all universities and colleges accredited by a

regional accrediting body that is recognized by the United States Department of

Education, the right to disclose any college degrees received by such

individuals and use the words "graduate engineer" on his stationery, business

cards, and personal communications of any character.
Looks to me like it's plain illegal to use the title "Engineer" without being licensed. There is a provision for the title "Graduate Engineer" *if* the university/college is accredited.

Matt, what does your state's registration law say?

 
I had to do some serious "bubble bursting" about a year ago. At my previous employer, I did quite a bit of interviewing for engineering staff. A young man applied for a vacant position that specificly called for am "Electrical, Marine or Mechanical Engineering degree from an ABET accredited university". (I know this because I wrote the requirment.) This young man sent his resume in and HR thought he looked good so they set up a in-person interview since he was in the local area. Myself and the rep from the Mechanical Engineering group walked in the office and were handed his resume 30 minutes before this guy was to show up. We look over his resume and saw he put that he had a BSEE degree, but no school name was given. We both noticed the absense of a school, but discounted it considering that he was a young guy, only 21, and he may have overlooked that bit of information, considering he was getting an interview for a $90K per year job. Well the interview started, we shoke hands, asked all the boilerplate questions, and then Chris, my Mech E friend, ask about his "school". The young man was VERY proud of the fact that in only two years he recieved his "BSEE" degree from one of those "Walmart Schools" (DeVry, ITT, etc), while working a day job as a sales clerk. My associate got up and walked out of the room, as did our Engineering Admin girl. (Partially in disgust, partially to avoid laughing in the guys face.) Since my friends abandoned me, I got to explain that his degree was not accredited, exactly what "accredition" meant and that in fact even putting "BSEE" on his resume could cause him problems. He of course disagreed and stated that "The school told me this degree was just as good as one from Texas A&M or University of Texas." My response "They may think that; but this company, as well as the State of Texas, does not hold thier school in such high reguard." I refered him over to our Lead Electrician in case he still was interested in a position in the company as an Electrician's Helper. I feel for the kid; he paid several thousand dollars, wasted two years, and has nothing to show for it.

Freon

 
He of course disagreed and stated that "The school told me this degree was just as good as one from Texas A&M or University of Texas." My response "They may think that; but this company, as well as the State of Texas, does not hold thier school in such high reguard." I refered him over to our Lead Electrician in case he still was interested in a position in the company as an Electrician's Helper. I feel for the kid; he paid several thousand dollars, wasted two years, and has nothing to show for it.
Pretty sad, isn't it? They just skirt the whole "unaccredited" bit with their students, from what I hear. They admit that it could be an issue for transferring to another school, but tell the student that it won't matter to employers after graduation or they try the bit of "Nationally accredited is BETTER than being regionally accredited!" Um, no. Nationally accredited schools are completely useless. Good luck transferring credits, since most/all regionally accredited schools either flat-out won't accept transfer credit from NA schools, or they will accept only very limited credits. Like my friend's husband, basically the student has to start over. He said that the ITT "admissions" person played off the idea of how he'd be the first in his family to attend college, and would have no problems finding a job. While that was accurate, now he's been laid off in a horrible job market and is finding that he spent a lot of money on a degree with little utility. If he'd gone to community college instead, not only would he have paid a lot less but would have far more options with regard to going back to school.

 
Y'all might find this interesting:
Looks to me like it's plain illegal to use the title "Engineer" without being licensed. There is a provision for the title "Graduate Engineer" *if* the university/college is accredited.

Matt, what does your state's registration law say?
I believe you'll find most states are similar - one cannot convey the impression that they are a PE unless they have been licensed according to state law. Quite sensible, no? I'm not a PE and have no intention of conveying myself as such. That said, some states' policy on industrial exemption and titles is nebulous, and it looks like Mississippi is one of them.

If you want to take away my ability to have "Mechanical Engineer" on my business card, have at it. I worked my tail off for four years to get my ABET-accredited engineering degree, just as you did. I suggest you educate yourself on the concept of industrial exemption, and bear in mind that for many mechanical, chemical, and aerospace engineers it is difficult to obtain a PE due to a dearth of PEs within their companies and areas of expertise (it's tough to get past the licensing board when none of your endorsers have a PE themselves).

I do think that the use of the title "Engineer" should be legally limited to those with an accredited engineering degree. Someone with a MCSE certification should not be able to call themselves a Systems Engineer unless they have a degree in systems engineering, no matter how much Microsoft may wish to bestow that particular honorific. And "PE" or "Professional Engineer" should of course be limited to those who have met the requirements for licensing. I also believe that the current laws requiring a PE in order to offer engineering services to the public are prudent, for reasons of public safety.

As I said, our "Field Engineer" situation has caused problems when people assume the field engineers are graduate engineers. The Canadians made that assumption about one guy and simply appended a "PE" to his name on a document. Awkward, to say the least, since this field engineer has no education beyond high school! Unfortunately, industrial exemption allows an employer to give their employees whatever title they feel like giving them - this is how one can encounter an "engineer" who never went to engineering school! The only solution is either eliminating industrial exemption (which may not be possible due to laws on interstate commerce) or instituting laws of the use of "Engineer" that are exclusive of any license status.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
If you want to take away my ability to have "Mechanical Engineer" on my business card, have at it.
I'm merely pointing out what the registration law says - how could I take away your ability to have it on there if it's already prohibited? Seems to me that you qualify for a "Graduate Mechanical Engineer" title, anyway.

I suggest you educate yourself on the concept of industrial exemption, and bear in mind that for many mechanical, chemical, and aerospace engineers it is difficult to obtain a PE due to a dearth of PEs within their companies and areas of expertise (it's tough to get past the licensing board when none of your endorsers have a PE themselves).
Unfortunately, industrial exemption allows an employer to give their employees whatever title they feel like giving them - this is how one can encounter an "engineer" who never went to engineering school! The only solution is either eliminating industrial exemption (which may not be possible due to laws on interstate commerce) or instituting laws of the use of "Engineer" that are exclusive of any license status.
Perhaps you wouldn't mind explaining industrial exemption. I'm sure I'm not the only one who's not familiar with it. :) I see where the law says that it can't prevent "the performance of engineering services" by folks working in a "manufacturing ...or other industrial" environment. It doesn't seem to speak to whether or not the title of "engineer" can be used for non-engineering personnel. Is that what you meant about the law being "nebulous"?

 
You can call yourself an engineer even if you only have a HS diploma. It isn't legitimate, but there are plenty of sales engineers, etc out there.

The problems begin to arise if you try to advertise yourself as a PE or try to provide engineering work.

YMMV.

 
This is all a little ridiculous. Essentially we're talking about what goes on our business cards. I personally don't think it should be up to the government who can call themselves whatever title.
Ridiculous? What about a person who called himself a Doctor? There is certainly an inherent risk to the public with unlicensed engineering, so SOMEONE needs to regulate it.

 
Ridiculous? What about a person who called himself a Doctor? There is certainly an inherent risk to the public with unlicensed engineering, so SOMEONE needs to regulate it.

Actually, I have said this before and I'll say it again. I don't think the government should be in charge of determining who can and cannot practice any profession (medicine included). That gives the state way too much power.

In a true free market, organizations (such as the AMA) could award credentials and the individual consumer or patient could determine for him/herself as to whether or not the individual was a competent "doctor". This is the way it was done in this country before the AMA lobbied enough state legislatures to gain a monopoly on the licensing of doctors. There are many individuals (holistic healers, chiropractors, accupuncture therapists, massage therapists, etc.) that provide health care services to individuals outside the restraints of the AMA. Yet people still seek their services. They just aren't allowed to prescribe medications because the AMA says that can't.

A similar organization (NCEES) did this with engineering. Why is the state in charge of licensing an individual? When the customer (whether it be a utility or a government entity) wanted engineering services, he could look at credentials (maybe it is a PE certificate) demonstrating that he is competent in this field. Other customers may elect to not have a person with those credentials working on their projects. Do you really believe that the taking of the PE is demonstrative of your ability to protect the public? Most people who have taken the exam would strongly disagree. From talking to my friends that are doctors, they feel the same way toward their medical licenses. Now there are certain associations for example (like the American Academy of Cardiology for my friend who is a cardiologist) and a doctor can go through the voluntary process of becoming a fellow in this assocation. He has more stringent requirements, studies, research, continuing education, etc. that he must meet. I only go to doctors who are fellows in their associated fields. I don't give two shits about their state granted license.

So in short, yes, it is absolutely ridiculous that the government regulates what goes on an individuals business cards or email signature.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thank you Matt. That goes a long way in helping me to understand the "industrial exemption". My interpretation of the law you quoted is that it looks like the company is in the clear with their use of the title "engineer", although that usage seems confusing to me.

My issue with this stems partly from my desire to have things neatly labeled, I fear.

Do you really believe that the taking of the PE is demonstrative of your ability to protect the public?
It's kind of like the coliform bacteria test - it's not that the coliforms are so dangerous, it's that their presence indicates the presence of other nasties which *are* dangerous. Of course, merely passing the PE exam is not necessarily demonstrative of one's ability to protect the public, but the passing of the test is a good indicator that you do posess that ability.

IIRC the whole issue about licensing came about because of a desire on government's part to protect people who didn't have enough sense to hire a capable engineer; so that catastrophic failure wouldn't occur and snuff out the unknowing innocents.

Whether or not that is a proper function of government is a debate of its own.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ridiculous? What about a person who called himself a Doctor? There is certainly an inherent risk to the public with unlicensed engineering, so SOMEONE needs to regulate it.
Which is why I've never been able to quite understand the Industrial Exemption. "It's okay, I only perform medical services on the employees of the company, so I'm exempt from Medical Regulations."

I worked for Northrop Grumman on Naval Ship Design. It's an exempt industry. There were a few PEs in the company, but none that had any real design influence. Why shouldn't the person that designed the bulkhead separating a warhead from the berthing space be required to be licensed? It was rated to withstand detonation.

 
Actually, I have said this before and I'll say it again. I don't think the government should be in charge of determining who can and cannot practice any profession (medicine included). That gives the state way too much power.
In a true free market, organizations (such as the AMA) could award credentials and the individual consumer or patient could determine for him/herself as to whether or not the individual was a competent "doctor". This is the way it was done in this country before the AMA lobbied enough state legislatures to gain a monopoly on the licensing of doctors. There are many individuals (holistic healers, chiropractors, accupuncture therapists, massage therapists, etc.) that provide health care services to individuals outside the restraints of the AMA. Yet people still seek their services. They just aren't allowed to prescribe medications because the AMA says that can't.

A similar organization (NCEES) did this with engineering. Why is the state in charge of licensing an individual? When the customer (whether it be a utility or a government entity) wanted engineering services, he could look at credentials (maybe it is a PE certificate) demonstrating that he is competent in this field. Other customers may elect to not have a person with those credentials working on their projects. Do you really believe that the taking of the PE is demonstrative of your ability to protect the public? Most people who have taken the exam would strongly disagree. From talking to my friends that are doctors, they feel the same way toward their medical licenses. Now there are certain associations for example (like the American Academy of Cardiology for my friend who is a cardiologist) and a doctor can go through the voluntary process of becoming a fellow in this assocation. He has more stringent requirements, studies, research, continuing education, etc. that he must meet. I only go to doctors who are fellows in their associated fields. I don't give two shits about their state granted license.

So in short, yes, it is absolutely ridiculous that the government regulates what goes on an individuals business cards or email signature.
Yeah, you've said it all before... but I have yet to read how you can reconcile two rather large problems: 1) How to ensure poor people get the benefit of competent services (particularly important with the medical profession)? and 2) How to ensure the public that's exposed to the hazards created by cheap "customers" is properly protected.

And it's also been written often here: while we don't have the perfect system, there are no working examples of any *better* system.

 
Back
Top