B.S. plus 30

[Katiebug]

That was a good write up. So they are worried that the BS degree is becoming to general.

I'd agree.

My BSME required 134 credits, and I graduated in 2003. My university's general requirement was 120 credits to get a BA or BS. Engineering was the only school that required significantly more. I can't remember how many gen eds that entailed, but I recall having at least 2 semesters where I took only engineering (or related math/science) courses. I tended to throw one gen ed in per semester if I could, just to liven things up a little. Most gen eds were a joke to get good grades in, anyways. I thought it was silly to make me take a basic history course followed by a history elective AND a history course from a non-Western perspective - the engineering majors killed two birds with one stone on that one with the "History of the Modern Middle East" class and a few others like it. Likewise, "German Film" fulfilled both a fine arts requirement and a foreign language/culture requirement in one class (we got into the spirit and snuck German beer into the lecture hall for that one!). Our advisors knew those little loopholes and managed to work things so as minimize the actual number of courses taken outside of engineering.

I think that there are certain courses that everyone with a BSME should have taken as an undergrad. I've been surprised to hear from our summer interns over the last few years that some courses that as recently as 5-6 years ago were required are now in-major electives, or that 2-course sequences have been condensed into one. Yeah, the Mickey Mouse baloney gen eds have a purpose, but maybe engineering degrees should be expanded to a 5-year program rather than a 4-year to ensure that appropriate major coursework is done right.

We're still the only profession where a bachelor's degree will suffice for entry - medicine and law both require professional graduate degrees. It certainly provides good food for thought.

 

[Guest]

My BSME required 134 credits, and I graduated in 2003. My university's general requirement was 120 credits to get a BA or BS.

I think there are many undergraduate engineering programs that require more than the 120 credit hours for the university general requirements. My BS required 154 credit hours when I graduated in 1996. ldtimer:

[Hijack - sort of]

These days, in Florida, EVERY undergraduate program is required to limit the curriculum to 120 credit hours. The state legislature passed some education reforms that included that provision in order to 'speed' students along in thier education.

Today, there is a MAJOR fight between the legislature and higher-education board of governors because the legislature is trying to moderate tuition increases and funding. In fact, they are pushing the state-run universities to CUT staff in a system that was already overwhelmed.

The response, at least from Florida State University (my current grad school) has been to freeze undergrad enrollment, eliminate 204 positions (40 of which were vacant), and raise FEES which is tantamount to raising tuition anyways (Note: fees are covered expenses for tax purposes). Moreover, once admissions are opened again they are going to PREFERENTIALLY admit out-of-state students since the tuition rate for those students is much higher than in-state. Oh, and one last thing while I am on my soap box - Florida has a state-assisted scholarship to award academic excellence. The plan now is to reward that scholarship based on your major rather than your academic achievment. So much for serving your INTENDED purposes - affordable education to the people of YOUR state. ldman:

IMHO, we can wax eloquently about how adding 30-credit hours to the base B.S. degree will bring up the standard of excellence in our profession. Truth of the matter is that education, in general, is broken in this country. A top-down approach to fix it is the only way to get to the root of the matter. To me, adding 30-credit hours to a curriculum is quite meaningless and in some cases may not be REASONABLY achievable if other states are facing higher educational crunches and shortfalls similar to Florida universities.

[/hijack]

JR

 

[C-Dog]

I've been thinking about this topic a lot lately. Here is my latest thought that I had on my snowy drive up the interstate this morning, which by the way was invented by HITLER :true:

I agree with waiving the FE exam if you have a Phd. If you got into a Phd. program and graduated, you have probably got a good grasp of the fundamentals. Requiring profs to have PEs may be too much, since most of them will not pass. They are closer to being scientist than engineers.

As far as the credit thing, I think a good engineer has to be a well rounded individual and should be required to take arts and history classes. Engineering is, after all, the application of sciene, math, and technology in order to better society. How can we, as a profession, better society if we do not understand society?

 

[kevo_55]

^^ I don't think there is a good answer for your last point C-Dogg.

I totally agree to atleast attempt to make the engineer a well-rounded person with the arts. Maybe this BS+30 thing is the way to go.

This isn't a really problem for us, but it will suck for the people starting college now.

 

[Guest]

I've been thinking about this topic a lot lately.

It is funny how this forum will do that to you eh?

I agree with waiving the FE exam if you have a Phd. If you got into a Phd. program and graduated, you have probably got a good grasp of the fundamentals.

Maybe yes - maybe no.

I dropped out of my PhD program for a few reasons. One of those reasons was that I saw other candidates getting through who could do 'reasearch' very, very well; however, if you gave them an exam to critically solve a problem they were hopelessly lost. If the problem was not laid out as A --> B --> C and Eureka, then it wasn't getting solved.

I think it is tough to grant carte blanche waivers because not all PhD's are created the same, hence the standardized examination.

My statement is not intended in any way as a slam on those who seek PhD status. It is really intended to broaden the thought about what the FE/PE examination should test and what purpose does it serve.

:2cents:

JR

 

[C-Dog]

I think it is tough to grant carte blanche waivers because not all PhD's are created the same, hence the standardized examination

Good point.

 

[Road Guy]

one more thing to add, I dont think the "up hill both ways engineers" had to take all the Bull sh*t classes like art appreciation, history, political science and other "requirements" that the fools in the education business think people need to be well rounded, Off course I dont ever plan on spending one more day in a college classroom, but I would gladly trade taking some other engineering class over most of the bullshit most people "have" to take their freshman / sophmore years.

Say you want to design bridges, why do you really need to learn who was the King of France in 1632?

 

[C-Dog]

Say you want to design bridges, why do you really need to learn who was the King of France in 1632?

YES, Because we use history to learn from our mistakes. Plus, if you look at the bridge design, just as the small finite picture of the bridge and just the bridge, you may not be bettering society, but hurting it.

By understanding society (which history helps in this), we can understand how our desing may impact it. An example of this is the highway designs of the 1950s. They destroyed many east coast cities and neighborhoods because the ENGINEERS designed them to slice right through the cities. Many of the cities have still not recovered from those errors which resulted in narrow focused engineering and not understanding society.

 

[Guest]

^^^ I agree that engineers (as well as ALL other college majors) should have a well rounded education. Appreciation for history, cultures, diversity, and society helps drive who we are and what we can achieve.

However, would you agree that the well-rounded aspect would be better served by offering up the education from high school as equivalent to (more or less) that of freshmen/sophmore college classes. If not, would you be opposed to structuring the secondary education (high school) to essentially meet those requirements so that an incoming freshman could begin with engineering curriculum from the onset rather than wade through two years of material they have already been introduced to in previous coursework?

My thought is that english, history, humanities, and social sciences were wasted time for me in the college years because I had already covered those subjects THOROUGHLY in my honors and AP courses in high school with much greater rigor. If our country truly wants to move forward with respect to education, they should make high school education represent an achievement rather than just an exercise in trying to prevent truancy and counting beans based on hollow standards and rote examinations.

:2cents:

JR

 

[RIP - VTEnviro]

My thought is that english, history, humanities, and social sciences were wasted time for me in the college years because I had already covered those subjects THOROUGHLY in my honors and AP courses in high school with much greater rigor.

I really enjoyed some of the humanities classes I took in college. But I knew no one was going to give a hoot if I learned everything there is to know about the religions of India if I bombed thermo. So I put minimal effort into those classes and focused on my major coursework instead.

I agree with Road Guy in some ways. The soft skills I learned on the job have made me more well rounded than being able to carry on a conversation at a party about 17th Century British lit.

 

[benbo]

I always liked GE because they brought up my GPA. On the other hand, I don't use any of it in my day to day job. But to be even more frank, there is a lot of technical classwork that I don't use in my day to day job either. Probably most of it. If I was using it on a daily basis I wouldn't have had to study like a fiend to pass the PE.

I could see tailoring the GE to fit the major - for example, classes in technical writing, writing for government work (which is what I mainly do), Technology and the Law, economics for engineers, basic business management course for technical workers, etc. When my dad went to school he was forced to take "Russian for Scientists and Engineers." Maybe have this as an option.

And I think classes like some of my design classes where you have to work in a team are criticla for some people, who just can't get along with others.

But "The History of Elizabethan Dance". Forget about it.

 

[RIP - VTEnviro]

I could see tailoring the GE to fit the major - for example, classes in technical writing, writing for government work (which is what I mainly do), Technology and the Law, economics for engineers, basic business management course for technical workers, etc.

I love it! Stuff like proposal writing or technical presentations to a lay audience would have been so much better than Music Appreciation.

When my dad went to school he was forced to take "Russian for Scientists and Engineers." Maybe have this as an option.

My Mom was a math major in the 60s and told me about that. German and Russian were technical languages you might need to know a bit of. Which is totally different now, as if you can't write something in decent English it won't get published.

 

[benbo]

Oh, I forgot one of my most valuable GE classes - Public Speaking. I hated it with a passion, but should have taken more. Maybe even some communication course that included interviewing.

Nothing I ever took in school was as valuable as all the speaking in front of groups that I did when getting my Master's. Unless this is natural for you. I was terrified of it, and now I'm comfortable.

 

[Capt Worley PE]

Two of the best GE classes I took were Technical Writing and Business Writing.

One of the most bizarre was psychology of marriage.

 

[C-Dog]

Who needs presidential debates when you have this great debate occuring

If we define engineers as Dynamic or Transactional, where Dynamic Engineers are are capable of abstract thinking and high-level problem solving using scientific knowledge. These engineers thrive in teams, work well across international borders, have strong interpersonal skills, and are capable of translating technical engineering jargon into common diction. Dynamic engineers lead innovation. Transactional Engineers may possess engineering fundamentals, but not the experience or expertise to apply this knowledge to larger problems. These individuals are typically responsible for rote and repetitive tasks in the workforce. One would need to be well rounded and have a great understanding of the world to be a Dynamic Engineer.

In previous positions, I have traveled the world, from Asia, Europe, and Africa, working with customers, suppliers, and partners. Typically the teams worked welll together, but when we had a person who was your stereotypical engineer nerd (this was always someone from the US), the team did not thrive because the team building typically always occured during social situations (drinking and dinner). While these stereotype engineer were great at crunching numbers and design, they could not work outside of that relm and when it came time to relate with a Japanese or German engineer, they could not and the team suffered for that.

This is why we need to be aware of other cultures, history, music, art.

Ok, I am now getting off my soapbox (need an emoticon for that)

 

[Dleg]

I highly value the "other" parts of my education, and I continue to pursue topics I am interested in. I think that makes me a better rounded person, as well as an engineer.

But I don't think it is absolutely required for pure, technical engineering. I think the system, at least as I experienced in the 1980s, strikes a good balance between technical coursework and general education.

 

[EM_PS]

I like your soap box, C-Dog - sounds to me you could have a career in the teaching world someday. . .

One of my favorite text authors was the late Curtis M. Brown. He was a CE who wrote / co-wrote a number of surveying texts. In one of his texts, he wrote of professional stature (of which lies outside of our famous 2-digit acronyms). He wrote: "Professional eminence is earned because of superior ability to apply knowledge for the benefit of others - To be successful as a professional requires more than a formal, technical education. Technical education has to do with things. Professionals deal with people - All of the technical knowledge in the world is of little aid unless a person can also convey this knowledge to others."

This is your dynamic engineer, spoke of some 40+ years back.

My 1st degree was in geology, received from a liberal-arts college. Taking music 101 got me listening to classical music. I still find myself practicing applications learned from my philosophy 101 class, and the various communications courses as well. Now, in obtaining my soon-to-be engineering degree, i am elated at not having to bother with any of the gen ed classes. . . .but also understand how very necessary they are for truly having that trained, broad-minded ability to view and troubleshoot problems, projects, & yes, people.

I don't know where i stand on the whole B+30 issue. . . until every state in the union even requires a BS degree, I guess i don't see the logic behind requiring an additional 30 credit hours. There's just so much doom-n-gloom speak out there in the STEM professions; attrition rates, foreign competition, low enrollment rates; I don't see (anymore) much incentive to pursue anything in the STEM sector - adding requirements to decreasing enrollees seems asinine & counterproductive.

 

[snickerd3]

Oh, I forgot one of my most valuable GE classes - Public Speaking. I hated it with a passion, but should have taken more. Maybe even some communication course that included interviewing.
Nothing I ever took in school was as valuable as all the speaking in front of groups that I did when getting my Master's. Unless this is natural for you. I was terrified of it, and now I'm comfortable.

I took the year long speech communications instead of the one semester rhetoric course for that very reason. I got the writting requirement statisifed, but I also got to work on preparing/giving speeches which I needed mega help with as I was a VERY shy person and absolutely hated speaking in front of people.

Chemical Engineering was part of the liberal arts college instead of the engineering college, so I had to take all the well rounded stuff in addition to the engineering. They were a pain, but a stress relief at the same time as they weren't as hard core. Two of my favs were probably Archeology of IL (one of those careers I would have loved, but you are poor) and Greek and Roman mythology. The profs organized the classes such that it was storytime every class. It was like being a kid again.

 

[C-Dog]

After giving my recent [graduate] exam, where one question was about determining a simple stress (s=P/A) and strain (Hooks law-> s=Ee) where only 40% of the class got it right, I now agree with this whole thing 100%. Even if I did not cover this in class, any engineer or engineering student should be able to get that question right, with out studying! I though that question was the one gimme on the test, but I was proved wrong.

Hopefully they learn from their mistakes.

 

[kevo_55]

^^ C-Dogg, I guess this proves that just by having a masters or PhD doesn't make you any smarter.