Master's Degree required for P.E.?

Anyone, in your opinion, Should a Master's Degree in an Engineering Field be required for taking the P.E. exam and licensing an engineer?

Would that requirement be valuable to already-licensed engineers or to their professions? How would this requirement affect the future P.E. and the related industry?

Thanks.

There is a lengthy discussion on this subject in a thread called BS plus 30.

Thanks Wilheldp_PE for the lead on BS plus 30. :lamo:

If you don't mind me asking, what do you think about the specific topics I mentioned above?

Thanks for your sincere reply.

I'm torn on the issue myself. I think requiring an advanced degree adds another layer of credibility to the title of Engineer (think JD required for Lawyers, or MD required for Doctors). On the other hand, very little of what you actually use in your career as an engineer is actually learned in school. But again, experience is just as important for doctors, and to a lesser extent, lawyers as it is for engineers.

I do have an M.Eng., so the requirement wouldn't really affect me. Plus, I'm already a PE, and I'm sure the requirement won't (can't?) be retroactive. There are several engineers on this board that don't even have bachelors that I would trust to design any structure/product that my life depended on, but they have far more experience than I do in engineering. I'm not sure I would trust a doctor that didn't have a medical degree no matter how much experience they have, so maybe that parallel doesn't hold.

In my humble opinion, it would add no appreciable value to being a PE. Where i have learned the most was AT WORK. Not in a lecture. Im not cracking on those with Masters, i just dont see the benefit. However, it does sound like a great revenue producing scheme for universities (which is probably where the idea originated)!!!

Thanks badal for your comment...how do you, or anyone reading this thread, think that extra requirement will affect the availability of PEs in the engineering market, since not every PE, even now, has a Master's degree in Engineering? Would that make existing PEs more valuable to PE-employing firms and new PEs more scarce to find? If this a good thing for PE-employing firms? Certainly, it seems beneficial for colleges...so, what's really the upside or downside of this issue for PEs and their potential employers?

Here's 191 pages on the topic from ASCE

http://www.asce.org/files/pdf/professional...751247675903691

requirements will not be retroactive.

ASCE no longer advocates a formal Master's Degree, but instead a "Body of Knowlege"

I think this change will absolutely happen - only the timetable is in question.

I have not read this document, but have been exposed to summaries of it via involvement in ASCE. As written now, I largely agree with the concept.

Here's a two page summary of key points:

http://www.asce.org/files/pdf/professional...oints040708.pdf

I agree with the frequently stated concept that engineers need real-world experience, not book learning. I have high hopes that the market (and online study) will combine to increase the number of useful, applicable graduate level courses and also further educate professors on the real world (via their students) improving the profession overall.

ASCE was instrumental in shaping NCEES's new policy - I expressed my opinions early on and changes were made to this proposal in line with my comments....

a master's degree is irrelevant. i learned more in my first year out of college than i ever wouldve taking any combination of classes for a master's.

i do, however, support a maximum number of PE exam attempts, be it 5 or 7 or so.

if you can't pass this exam in that number of tries, you shouldn't be doing things that involve human safety.

I think I said it in the other thread (BS + 30), but I'll say it again here: If ASCE and NCEES and academia (ABET) all agree that a bachelor's degree is no longer adequate training for a civil engineer, then I don't see the purpose of simply adding a master's or extra coursework to a BS - just make an engineering BS become a 6-year degree. Call it something else to satisfy that (ridiculous) urge to "feel like lawyers." Call it an "ED" or something snooty based on latin. (anyone know any latin?)

But, seriously - if we are indeed being serious about this - what's the point of continuing the current B.S. engineering system if everyone agrees it does not make a person an engineer? We'll have to start calling a B.S. a "pre-engineering" degree.

But then again, what about the other disciplines? I am still fairly confident my M.E. degree prepared me adequately for entering the world of mechanical engineering and obtaining the professional experience I needed to get licensed. Did the other engineering professions have a say in this? Or is this something being pushed by the civil engineering "majority" only?

And I also have to echo the sentiment, which ASCE fortunately does also, that experience plays just as big a role as the degree for an engineer. I had to explain to my boss recently (he wanted to hire a recent graduate for a difficult eng. management job), that engineers don't leave college ready to perform a job. They leave ready to learn a job. That's one of the big differences between a lawyer, for example, and an engineer. The lawyer spends a few years in school. We spend a few years on a job. Only then can we work unsupervised on projects.

Dleg said:

just make an engineering BS become a 6-year degree

Click to expand...

What about the timeline of this qualification pipeline? Just about everyone agrees the education, experience, and examination wickets are appropriate and the are almost always linear: first education, then FE examination, then experience, and finally PE examination. Is the BS+30 intended to be a BS, followed by some experience, then followed by an MS (or maybe with some classes thrown in along the way with experience)?

Graduate education is supposed to be different from Undergraduate education - making the BS six years might ignore this.

I have two questions, 1. what is current problem that this requirement will solve, and 2. are they going to align the MS course work with the work the PE is expected to perform. It makes no sence for a Engineer to get a MS in environmental if they are going to practice structural. This would be the same for Geotechnical, Transportation and Construction.

EnvEngineer said:

I have two questions, 1. what is current problem that this requirement will solve, and 2. are they going to align the MS course work with the work the PE is expected to perform. It makes no sence for a Engineer to get a MS in environmental if they are going to practice structural. This would be the same for Geotechnical, Transportation and Construction.

Click to expand...

you touched on a very valid point. i don't know how many colleagues studied one field of CivilE in college, and now practice in another after working for a bit.

it's absurd to burden those students with more classwork (and debt) for a career path they may not even enjoy or stick with.

i will reiterate: experience gained during actual engineering work is much, much more valuable than class work. you simply don't learn real world scenarios in a classroom, no matter what is being taught.

I am not a great student in college because I graduated with GPA 2.80 only. A master degree ask student who have GPA above 3.00 and you need to take a GRE or GMAT for it......

If this is true that became a PE you need to be pass GRE or GMAT, FE and then finally PE?

I never heard that a license should be build ontop of another prefoession (Business, english)....Maybe that a english major can be PE later on... :210:

The only thing I think it will do is make passing rates for the FE and PE higher.

It is not a complete waste of time, but BS + 30 really will not help the average employer, so I don't see why they are suddenly going to start paying us all more than they already do for P.E.'s

Plus it seems to me that the further you go in your field the more specialized the training becomes, I think those extra 30 hours will end up being training you will never utilize. But as with most college classes there is always a review of the basics so that is why I think it will help with pass rates.

In my understanding, it was generated by the Structural Engineering Field. I'm not advocating or disapproving it because I know little about the big picture. However, I can say with certainty that my bachelors degree was NOT enough to know all there is about structural engineering. There are plenty of structural engineering topics like post-tensioned concrete, prestressed concrete, advanced mechanics of materials, finite element analysis, and plate/shell theory that a structural engineer may encounter in his career but never, ever be required to have a classical education for.

I think the point of it all is that many senior-level structural engineers (like some mentioned in "Structure" Magazine and "Structural Engineer" Magazine) have stated that the engineering schools are not the same as they use to be. The goal is to have more competency when entering the real world, not having more competency to have your license. I believe most of it is a result of being more and more frustrated with entry-level engineers.

Anyone agree/disagree?

Also, I think since most engineers will have a goal of acheiving their license - it is an eventual, predicted reaction by those pursueing engineering that they will be more prepared in their entry-level position regardless of whether they need a PE in the near future.

EnvEngineer said:

2. are they going to align the MS course work with the work the PE is expected to perform. It makes no sense for a Engineer to get a MS in environmental if they are going to practice structural. This would be the same for Geotechnical, Transportation and Construction.

Click to expand...

My understanding is that it's 30 credits of graduate education in ANY discipline. Even an MBA would count.

I think the ncees model is in the right direction. The main impetus has seemingly been to bolster the engineering curricula that have gotten weaned down from 150 credits (once upon a time) for a B.S. to around 120 credits(!) for some programs today. My alma mater has fallen victim to the same trend, it was 136 credits when i took program, now is down to 133 credits. Always a class that gets bumped for one reason or another (in this case it was business law). That said, i think if programs continue w/ seemingly watered-down degrees or leaner curricula, the BS+30 makes sense. since 30 credits past the undergrad level usually fulfills a master's course requirement, most folks trying to round out the increased credits will arguably pursue that in the form of an M.S. I wouldn't go so far as to say an M.S. is the requirement, just that one's academic curriculum had better at least fulfill the target of 150 credit hours (or more), in tangible, relevant courses in whatever field of engineering one is pursuing. If that includes business courses (and it should), so be it.

*edit*

Dleg said:

Call it an "ED" or something snooty based on latin. (anyone know any latin?)

Click to expand...

Riparum usus publicus est jure gentium, sicut ipsius fluminis.

so would an MBA count to be licensed in 2015? Even though its not a "technical" civil degree?

This from page 12, NCEES Model law August 2008:

c. Licensure by Examination (Effective January 1, 2020)5 – The following individuals shall70 be admitted to an 8-hour written examination in the principles and practice of

71 engineering and, upon passing such examination and providing proof of graduation, shall

72 be licensed as a professional engineer, if otherwise qualified:

73 (1) An engineer intern with a bachelor’s degree in engineering, with an additional 30

74 credits of acceptable upper-level undergraduate and/or graduate-level coursework

75 from approved course providers, and with a specific record of 4 years or more of

76 progressive experience on engineering projects of a grade and a character which

77 indicate to the board that the applicant may be competent to practice engineering.

78 (2) An engineer intern with a master’s degree in engineering from an institution that

79 offers EAC/ABET-accredited programs, or the equivalent, and with a specific record

80 of 3 years or more of progressive experience on engineering projects of a grade and a

81 character which indicate to the board that the applicant may be competent to

82 practice engineering.

83 (3) An engineer intern with a doctorate in engineering acceptable to the board and with

84 a specific record of 2 years or more of progressive experience on engineering projects

85 of a grade and a character which indicate to the board that the applicant may be

86 competent to practice engineering.

87 (4) An individual with a doctorate in engineering acceptable to the board and with a

88 specific record of 4 years or more of progressive experience on engineering projects of

89 a grade and a character which indicate to the board that the applicant may be

90 competent to practice engineering.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure how many (if any) States have adopted this model. Ultimately, it is the state boards that will require (or not) implementing this, and what constitutes 'approved course providers or acceptable undergrad / grad coursework. '