# ITT Technical Institute? Really?



## Matt-NM

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).


----------



## Kephart P.E.

Matt-NM said:


> 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.


----------



## Supe

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.


----------



## wilheldp_PE

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.


----------



## Fluvial

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?


----------



## Katiebug

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.


----------



## Fluvial

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?


----------



## Freon

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&amp;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


----------



## Fluvial

That's sad, Freon, but unfortunately that's the way it goes.


----------



## Katiebug

Freon said:


> He of course disagreed and stated that "The school told me this degree was just as good as one from Texas A&amp;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.


----------



## Katiebug

Fluvial said:


> 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.


----------



## Fluvial

Katiebug said:


> 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"?


----------



## Capt Worley PE

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.


----------



## Chucktown PE

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.


----------



## Matt-NM

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


----------



## IlPadrino

Chucktown PE said:


> 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.


----------



## Chucktown PE

IlPadrino said:


> 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.


----------



## Fluvial

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.



Chucktown PE said:


> 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.


----------



## jmbeck

IlPadrino said:


> 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.


----------



## IlPadrino

Chucktown PE said:


> 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.


----------



## MGX

IlPadrino said:


> 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.


Are you certain the European system isn't better?


----------



## Fluvial

As I was musing about this topic, a couple of other things occured to me ....

The registration laws originated from the engineering community, not the lawmakers themselves. We are the ones who update them and ensure that they stay reasonable. So really it isn't "government" regulating us so much as it is us regulating ourselves.

One area in which I think the registration law protects us (as engineers) is in expert witnessing. What kind of world would it be where any layperson could come into a courtroom and testify as if he or she had engineering knowledge? Let's say you designed a parking lot for a major casino. Later some of the windows in the building leak when it rains. The casino sues everyone including you. They bring in some rent-an-expert to testify that your parking lot design caused the windows to leak. Would you rather that the state law demand this witness be a licensed design professional, or not?

*MGX*: I lol'd.


----------



## Chucktown PE

IlPadrino said:


> 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.


So poor people aren't capable of seeing if a doctor went to medical school? Many poor people go to free clinics. Do you know that free clinics employ many medical students meaning they aren't doctors. You better call the licensing police and make sure you protect them.

And I guess that "cheap" customers are going to go out and make sure that they get the best price even if, in the case of an office building, the building is going to fall down in 2 years. I mean, they don't have any interest in making it last as long as possible, they only own the building. And they don't want to prevent anything that would cause lawsuits or anything like that. They just want the best price possible. And without a doubt, the "engineer" has no incentive to make sure the thing doesn't fall down in two years, lawsuits for malpractice aren't a big deal or anything.


----------



## Chucktown PE

Fluvial said:


> As I was musing about this topic, a couple of other things occured to me ....
> The registration laws originated from the engineering community, not the lawmakers themselves. We are the ones who update them and ensure that they stay reasonable. So really it isn't "government" regulating us so much as it is us regulating ourselves.
> 
> One area in which I think the registration law protects us (as engineers) is in expert witnessing. What kind of world would it be where any layperson could come into a courtroom and testify as if he or she had engineering knowledge? Let's say you designed a parking lot for a major casino. Later some of the windows in the building leak when it rains. The casino sues everyone including you. They bring in some rent-an-expert to testify that your parking lot design caused the windows to leak. Would you rather that the state law demand this witness be a licensed design professional, or not?
> 
> *MGX*: I lol'd.



Actually, I would rather the jury decide what is accurate and what isn't. Seems like that's the way our judicial system is supposed to work. And the state law doesn't prevent someone that may not be a PE from testifying in court to the contrary. Do you really think that the jury is going to say 'well he has a PE, he must be correct because PEs don't lie and they never make mistakes, they took a test that says so.'


----------



## IlPadrino

Chucktown PE said:


> So poor people aren't capable of seeing if a doctor went to medical school? Many poor people go to free clinics. Do you know that free clinics employ many medical students meaning they aren't doctors. You better call the licensing police and make sure you protect them.


I haven't spent much time in free clinics, but I'm guessing everyone providing medical care is under the supervision of licensed physicians. And, please, tear down that Straw Man! Many (but not all!) poor people are capable of seeing if a doctor went to medical school (at least they could, if sufficiently motivated). But if given the choice between services they can't afford (not everything is available in a free clinic) and services from someone less than qualified, many will also choose to pay a cut-rate and roll the dice.



Chucktown PE said:


> And I guess that "cheap" customers are going to go out and make sure that they get the best price even if, in the case of an office building, the building is going to fall down in 2 years. I mean, they don't have any interest in making it last as long as possible, they only own the building. And they don't want to prevent anything that would cause lawsuits or anything like that. They just want the best price possible. And without a doubt, the "engineer" has no incentive to make sure the thing doesn't fall down in two years, lawsuits for malpractice aren't a big deal or anything.


It's hard to respond to all that sarcasm... but stop guessing! There are many customers who would save some money by hiring someone incompetent (even though well-intentioned). There are lots of transactional services where the buyer is long-gone down the road. Lawsuits don't save lives.


----------



## Chucktown PE

IlPadrino said:


> I haven't spent much time in free clinics, but I'm guessing everyone providing medical care is under the supervision of licensed physicians. And, please, tear down that Straw Man! Many (but not all!) poor people are capable of seeing if a doctor went to medical school (at least they could, if sufficiently motivated). But if given the choice between services they can't afford (not everything is available in a free clinic) and services from someone less than qualified, many will also choose to pay a cut-rate and roll the dice.


So now we are protecting everyone in this country from what you perceive as a bad decision? I think we're going to need some more laws. What about cheap massage therapists? And do you really think a great unwashed poor person is going to let some idiot cut them open with a scalpel? If so maybe it's Darwinism at work.



IlPadrino said:


> It's hard to respond to all that sarcasm... but stop guessing! There are many customers who would save some money by hiring someone incompetent (even though well-intentioned). There are lots of transactional services where the buyer is long-gone down the road. Lawsuits don't save lives.


No it isn't. Well I can say without a doubt that if it weren't for my PE license I'd be designing cut rate structures, skimping on rebar, and using cheap concrete. Here's the funny thing IlPadrino, I have to have a license to show something on a drawing, but the guy that's forming the rebar can come in off the street half drunk. Arguably, his job is just as important as mine. And the building inspector doesn't have to have a license. The guy that designs the elevator doesn't have to have a license, nor does the guy that installs the fire sprinkler. So do all these people need licenses now?

My point in all of this is to say that yes, there are bad people out there that will do unscrupulous things, however, it's impossible to pass enough laws to protect all people from all things. I understand that sucks, but what makes us do the right thing, act ethically, and do good work could be a combination of things 1) our customers (if we do shit work they aren't going to be asking us to do any more) 2) making sure people aren't harmed by our work (call it self preservation, fear of a lawsuit, whatever) 3) personal pride in our work. There may be other factors but I have not once in my career made an engineering judgement because I have a PE or because I passed some test, nor do I think those things make me any better of an engineer. Ask those that failed the test what their opinion is.


----------



## Capt Worley PE

I thought building inspectors WERE licensed.


----------



## benbo

Chucktown PE said:


> The guy that designs the elevator doesn't have to have a license, nor does the guy that installs the fire sprinkler. So do all these people need licenses now?


First of all, we are talking about state licenses, not federal licenses. As far as I know, the Constitution allows the states to make laws about many things. I take it you are against state driver's licenses, state building codes, and any state laws for that matter?

Also, if you are so gung ho opposed to this intrusion, why not be a patriot and relinquish your license and the comfy existence it provides you in order to make a statement and sacrifice for your beliefs?


----------



## Chucktown PE

benbo said:


> First of all, we are talking about state licenses, not federal licenses. As far as I know, the Constitution allows the states to make laws about many things. I take it you are against state driver's licenses, state building codes, and any state laws for that matter?
> Also, if you are so gung ho opposed to this intrusion, why not be a patriot and relinquish your license and the comfy existence it provides you in order to make a statement and sacrifice for your beliefs?



I don't see anywhere in the South Carolina Constitution or the US Constitution establishing government authority so say who can and cannot sign their business cards with Engineer or Doctor. If you do see this please let me know. And yes, I am against many of the laws you refer to above.

Okay, so if I disagree with a law then I should break it? How is that patriotic? I am resigned to the fact that some things aren't going to change, such as people who defend the power of the state no matter what. My first duty in life is to provide for my wife and kids. I don't have the luxury of relinquishing my license. But that brings up another point, my company encouraged me to get the PE, not the government. I could have kept on doing what I was doing whether I had license or not, but my company compensates me slightly better with a license.


----------



## benbo

Chucktown PE said:


> I don't see anywhere in the South Carolina Constitution or the US Constitution establishing government authority so say who can and cannot sign their business cards with Engineer or Doctor. If you do see this please let me know. And yes, I am against many of the laws you refer to above.
> Okay, so if I disagree with a law then I should break it? How is that patriotic?


I didn't say break the law. I said sacrifice for your belief. Find a profession which doesn't require licensing. Apparently you don't find it too bad being under the oppressive thumb of the state, as long as they compensate you for it.

Which laws are you against? Building codes? Please be specific. And you know as well as I do that the Constitution does not dictate every jot and tittle of the law.

There is a continuum of belief in regulations, from the anarchist point of view, to the fascist. Everybody falls somewhere on that continuum, including me and you. I am totally against these non-smoking regulations, but favor building codes.

If you are an anarchist, fine, you are intellectually honest at least. But I don't know why you're not on a farm in Idaho.


----------



## Chucktown PE

benbo said:


> I didn't say break the law. I said sacrifice for your belief. Find a profession which doesn't require licensing. Apparently you don't find it too bad being under the oppressive thumb of the state, as long as they compensate you for it.
> Which laws are you against? Building codes? Please be specific. And you know as well as I do that the Constitution does not dictate every jot and tittle of the law.
> 
> There is a continuum of belief in regulations, from the anarchist point of view, to the fascist. Everybody falls somewhere on that continuum, including me and you. I am totally against these non-smoking regulations, but favor building codes.
> 
> If you are an anarchist, fine, you are intellectually honest at least. But I don't know why you're not on a farm in Idaho.



Typical tactic of leftist, assume that because I don't believe in everything the all powerful leviathin state does then I must be some right wing nut job. Actually, I am currently in the process of studying for the GMAT. If I get into a good MBA program and it looks like the grass in greener in the business world, I may do just that. And who is they? The utility I do consulting work for doesn't pay us any more because I'm a PE.

I was specific, any law which infringes on my right to life, liberty, or property I am against. So if I want to modify my house and only include on electrical receptacle in the room, I don't think I should need approval from the state for such a thing. I am not an anarchist. I do believe that laws and government are necessary, however, I believe they should be restricted to their constitutional roles (mainly the federal government). But given the choice I would choose to have more state laws that federal laws, at least then I could move if I found the laws too opressive.

And by the way, not one person has noted a single instance where the PE exam saved someone's life or prevented some building from falling down.


----------



## Capt Worley PE

Chucktown PE said:


> The guy that designs the elevator doesn't have to have a license, nor does the guy that installs the fire sprinkler.


Actually, the guy who installs the sprinkler DOES have to have a license. See SC 40-10-41


----------



## Chucktown PE

Capt Worley PE said:


> Actually, the guy who installs the sprinkler DOES have to have a license. See SC 40-10-41



Okay, so I stand corrected on that one issue. What about the guy that builds the elevator, or the 4160V electrical panels? I'm simply trying to say that all this stuff is ambiguous at best and I don't think it does anything for the citizen.


----------



## benbo

I was specific, any law which infringes on my right to life, liberty, or property I am against.

I am not an anarchist. I do believe that laws and government are necessary, however, I believe they should be restricted to their constitutional roles (mainly the federal government).

Huh? Please name any law which doesn't infringe, to some degree, on your right to life, liberty, or property. It's a question of degree.

By the way, I'm not a leftist and I didn't say you were a right wing nut job. I suspect I'm just a little to the left of you.


----------



## Chucktown PE

benbo said:


> I was specific, any law which infringes on my right to life, liberty, or property I am against.
> I am not an anarchist. I do believe that laws and government are necessary, however, I believe they should be restricted to their constitutional roles (mainly the federal government).
> 
> Huh? Please name any law which doesn't infringe, to some degree, on your right to life, liberty, or property. It's a question of degree.
> 
> By the way, I'm not a leftist and I didn't say you were a right wing nut job. I suspect I'm just a little to the left of you.


No, you just said I should go out to some farm in Idaho. Okay, laws which don't infringe on anyone's right to life, liberty, or property:

99% of contract law i.e. laws enforcing contracts, 99% of criminal laws, i.e. laws against murder, battery, armed robbery, rape, etc. 99% of civil law, i.e. I can sue someone if they wrong me.

welfare, nationalized health care, confiscatory "progressive" income taxes, social security, building codes, nationalized automotive industry, most environmental laws, etc. are not constitutional.


----------



## jmbeck

benbo said:


> By the way, I'm not a leftist and I didn't say you were a right wing nut job. I suspect I'm just a little to the left of you.


I'd suspect that Alan Keyes would find himself a little to the right of Chuck.

But that's okay, cause it takes a village. That's what I hear anyway.

:unitedstates:


----------



## benbo

Chucktown PE said:


> No, you just said I should go out to some farm in Idaho. Okay, laws which don't infringe on anyone's right to life, liberty, or property:
> 99% of contract law i.e. laws enforcing contracts, 99% of criminal laws, i.e. laws against murder, battery, armed robbery, rape, etc. 99% of civil law, i.e. I can sue someone if they wrong me.
> 
> welfare, nationalized health care, confiscatory "progressive" income taxes, social security, building codes, nationalized automotive industry, most environmental laws, etc. are not constitutional.


Contract law tells me how I am required to compose contracts, and how they are supposed to be enforced. This constrains my liberty on how I am to establish businesses and make deals. It also constrains how I am to transfer property. And there are also laws for civil proceedings which regulate how the courts operate.

Criminal law certainly constrains my liberty. Traffic laws do as well. I can't do whatever I want, therefore I am not fully free.


----------



## Fluvial

Chucktown PE said:


> Actually, I would rather the jury decide what is accurate and what isn't. Seems like that's the way our judicial system is supposed to work.


I don't think it's okay for a non-engineer to pull the wool over a jury's eyes and convince them of something which can't be possible. There are many technical matters of which the standard juror has no knowledge, or at the most a very limited understanding.



> And the state law doesn't prevent someone that may not be a PE from testifying in court to the contrary.


Our state law does - as an expert witness. You must be registered in MS to testify in a MS court as an expert engineer.



> Do you really think that the jury is going to say 'well he has a PE, he must be correct because PEs don't lie and they never make mistakes, they took a test that says so.'


Thank you for making my point for me.



> What about the guy that builds the elevator, or the 4160V electrical panels?


 Here, that electrician has to have a Master Electrician license.



> not one person has noted a single instance where the PE exam saved someone's life or prevented some building from falling down.


How would one go about proving that? Sounds like proving a negative. We can probably find cites for a failure when the design professional was unlicensed.



> Okay, so if I disagree with a law then I should break it?


No, you should work to change it.


----------



## benbo

Chucktown PE said:


> welfare, nationalized health care, confiscatory "progressive" income taxes, social security, building codes, nationalized automotive industry, most environmental laws, etc. are not constitutional.


I might add that I would agree that a lot of these things are unconstitutional and certainly not the province of the federal government. Unfortunately, every since Marbury v Madison the country has recognized the notion of judicial review and I don't think that is likely to change.

However, with building codes and PE licenses these are state functions. I would much rather have these things decided by state legislatures or referendum than by some court system.


----------



## Sschell

the majority of "engineers" at my work have only 2 year degrees.


----------



## Chucktown PE

Fluvial said:


> I don't think it's okay for a non-engineer to pull the wool over a jury's eyes and convince them of something which can't be possible. There are many technical matters of which the standard juror has no knowledge, or at the most a very limited understanding.


You may not think it's okay but it doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.



Fluvial said:


> Thank you for making my point for me.


What point?



Fluvial said:


> Here, that electrician has to have a Master Electrician license.


Not here. And if you have one master electrician you can still have 20 other un licensed people on the jobsite performing work.



Fluvial said:


> How would one go about proving that? Sounds like proving a negative. We can probably find cites for a failure when the design professional was unlicensed.


You can also show quite a bit of work by licensed professional engineers that resulted in a loss of human life.



benbo said:


> I might add that I would agree that a lot of these things are unconstitutional and certainly not the province of the federal government. Unfortunately, every since Marbury v Madison the country has recognized the notion of judicial review and I don't think that is likely to change.
> However, with building codes and PE licenses these are state functions. I would much rather have these things decided by state legislatures or referendum than by some court system.


Now there is something we can agree on.


----------



## IlPadrino

Chucktown PE said:


> What about cheap massage therapists?


What about them?



Chucktown PE said:


> And do you really think a great unwashed poor person is going to let some idiot cut them open with a scalpel? If so maybe it's Darwinism at work.


It's been seen in back-alley abortion clinics, so, yes, I think some "idiots" (your word... not sure why you're being so demeaning) would. Sure, it's Darwinism at work, but we're better than the monkeys, so that just helps to prove my point. If you want a world where only the fittest survive, you'll need to live elsewhere than the First World.



Chucktown PE said:


> No it isn't. Well I can say without a doubt that if it weren't for my PE license I'd be designing cut rate structures, skimping on rebar, and using cheap concrete. Here's the funny thing IlPadrino, I have to have a license to show something on a drawing, but the guy that's forming the rebar can come in off the street half drunk. Arguably, his job is just as important as mine. And the building inspector doesn't have to have a license. The guy that designs the elevator doesn't have to have a license, nor does the guy that installs the fire sprinkler. So do all these people need licenses now?
> My point in all of this is to say that yes, there are bad people out there that will do unscrupulous things, however, it's impossible to pass enough laws to protect all people from all things. I understand that sucks, but what makes us do the right thing, act ethically, and do good work could be a combination of things 1) our customers (if we do shit work they aren't going to be asking us to do any more) 2) making sure people aren't harmed by our work (call it self preservation, fear of a lawsuit, whatever) 3) personal pride in our work. There may be other factors but I have not once in my career made an engineering judgement because I have a PE or because I passed some test, nor do I think those things make me any better of an engineer. Ask those that failed the test what their opinion is.


You're just building more Straw Men that have nothing to do with the issue at hand. In your fairy-tale word, there's no need for deterrents from acting poorly other than customers, self-preservation, and personal pride. I find that quite ridiculous even with your "there may be other factors" because bad things seem to keep happening in the world. Licensing isn't the panacea, but it's a useful framework that serves the public's interest.


----------



## Fluvial

Chucktown PE said:


> You may not think it's okay but it doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.


Whether it happens or not has nothing to do with my point.



> What point?


 That non-engineers, by and large, aren't sufficiently educated to be able to "decide what is accurate and what isn't". Requiring that an expert witness be a licensed engineer protects the legal system from opportunists. Do you think my previous example was OK, where the casino could collect damages from a parking lot designer for leaky windows?



> Not here. And if you have one master electrician you can still have 20 other un licensed people on the jobsite performing work.


 Glad I'm not there, then.

There is a certain mindset about "having a piece of paper to hang on the wall" that I don't agree with. Maybe that's one of the things that rankles you about the P.E. test or license, I don't know. But there do need to be things like building codes and standards of medical care, and engineering licenses, IMHO.


----------



## jmbeck

Fluvial said:


> Glad I'm not there, then.


The great state of Mississippi, better than South Carolina.

Oh, and the State college of MS produces the finest engineers in the South. Most modest also.


----------



## Chucktown PE

^^ My parents had a graduation party for my youngest brother this weekend and I was telling an old family friend that I was living down in Charleston now and his response was "God love that place, it's the only thing that keeps us from being worse than Mississippi." I hadn't ever heard that one before. Having grown up in SC I feel like it's the best place on earth, but it seems that I'm in the minority.


----------



## jmbeck

I feel the same way about MS. We have more than our fair share of problems, but I'll defend my fair state to the bitter end.

Funny thing is, 95% of the people that talk poorly about MS (or the South in general) have never been there. I think it goes without saying that's the way we like it too.


----------



## Fluvial

jmbeck said:


> Oh, and the State college of MS produces the finest engineers in the South. Most modest also.


I didn't go to State. But I think all the engineering schools in the south produce good engineers - I'd pick Georgia Tech as the best (didn't go there either).

My Daddy got his PhD from South Carolina - I went to the first grade there. It's a beautiful place.


----------



## squishles10

opcorn:


----------



## Capt Worley PE

Chucktown PE said:


> Having grown up in SC I feel like it's the best place on earth, but it seems that I'm in the minority.


Nah, I left and came back. SC is pretty dang good in my book.

Regarding the elctricians, I'm almost posiitve the company has to be licensed and the workers have certificates, but I'm too lazy to look it up. My point is, if you see unlicensed guys running around, you might want to contact someone about it, the contractors board or someone.


----------



## Chucktown PE

Fluvial said:


> I didn't go to State. But I think all the engineering schools in the south produce good engineers - I'd pick Georgia Tech as the best (didn't go there either).
> My Daddy got his PhD from South Carolina - I went to the first grade there. It's a beautiful place.



Georgia Tech may have the best academic reputation, but in our company a lot of the Georgia Tech grads (particularly the ones that graduated in the last 5 years) don't know how to wipe their asses without a manual of some kind.


----------



## ROBIAMEIT

Supe said:


> 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.


i graduated from Penn State with an 'Engineering Technology" Degree. Went 4 1/2 years, took all the usual pre-engineering classes and spent my Junior and Senior yr taking MASSIVE amounts of very specific classes in my field of study. PLEASE don't sell us "technology" degree holders short. OF COURSE our curiculum is ABET accredited. IMO Penn States Technology program is better then the typical "Engineering" degree.


----------



## Chucktown PE

Now it's my turn.

opcorn:


----------



## wilheldp_PE

ROBIAMEIT said:


> i graduated from Penn State with an 'Engineering Technology" Degree. Went 4 1/2 years, took all the usual pre-engineering classes and spent my Junior and Senior yr taking MASSIVE amounts of very specific classes in my field of study. PLEASE don't sell us "technology" degree holders short. OF COURSE our curiculum is ABET accredited. IMO Penn States Technology program is better then the typical "Engineering" degree.


First of all, there is a HUGE difference between an ABET accredited engineering technology degree from a college or university and a "print-your-own" degree from the likes of ITT and DeVry. Second, here is the NSPE's take on the differences between engineering and engineering technology. I think it sums things up quite nicely.

From Here



> Engineering and engineering technology are recognized as distinct points on the technical occupational spectrum. For example, ABET's accreditation criteria defines engineering as "the profession in which a knowledge of the mathematical and natural sciences gained by study, experience, and practice is applied with judgment to develop ways to use economically the materials and forces of nature for the benefit of mankind." Engineering technology is defined as "that part of the technological field that requires the application of scientific and engineering knowledge and methods combined with technical skills in support of engineering activities; it lies in the occupational spectrum between the craftsman and the engineer at the end of the spectrum closest to the engineer." In other words, the engineer is the person who conceives the design, while the engineering technologist is the person who implements it.
> The distinction between engineering and engineering technology emanates primarily from differences in their educational programs. Engineering programs are geared toward development of conceptual skills, and consist of a sequence of engineering fundamentals and design courses, built on a foundation of complex mathematics and science courses. Engineering technology programs are oriented toward application, and provide their students introductory mathematics and science courses, and only a qualitative introduction to engineering fundamentals. Thus, engineering programs provide their graduates a breadth and depth of knowledge that allows them to function as designers. Engineering technology programs prepare their graduates to apply others' designs.
> 
> This distinction between engineering and engineering technology is acknowledged in several ways. For example, ABET establishes separate accreditation criteria for each program. The criteria prohibits an accredited engineering technology program from claiming that it gives its graduates the equivalent of an engineering education. In addition, a comparison of the pass rates on the Fundamentals of Engineering exam between engineering and engineering technology graduates indicates that technology graduates have a significantly more difficult time with the exam than do engineering graduates.


----------



## ROBIAMEIT

wilheldp_PE ~

my degree is in Structural Design and Construction Engineering Technology.

As far as the "Engineering programs are geared toward development of conceptual skills, and consist of a sequence of engineering fundamentals and design courses, built on a foundation of complex mathematics and science courses. Engineering technology programs are oriented toward application, and provide their students introductory mathematics and science courses, and only a qualitative introduction to engineering fundamentals." statement I would have to disagree 100%!

i dont know of ANY Civil Engineer who took more math than i did, or physics or chemistry, or any other "complex mathematics and science courses". It simply isnt true.

I know the ONLY reason i had trouble with the FE exam was because of the inordinate amount of electrical problems on it. Made me wonder "WTF?!!" when you look around the room and only about 10 out of 100 kids taking it were elctrical and the rest of us were Civil??


----------



## wilheldp_PE

ROBIAMEIT said:


> wilheldp_PE ~
> my degree is in Structural Design and Construction Engineering Technology.
> 
> As far as the "Engineering programs are geared toward development of conceptual skills, and consist of a sequence of engineering fundamentals and design courses, built on a foundation of complex mathematics and science courses. Engineering technology programs are oriented toward application, and provide their students introductory mathematics and science courses, and only a qualitative introduction to engineering fundamentals." statement I would have to disagree 100%!
> 
> i dont know of ANY Civil Engineer who took more math than i did, or physics or chemistry, or any other "complex mathematics and science courses". It simply isnt true.
> 
> I know the ONLY reason i had trouble with the FE exam was because of the inordinate amount of electrical problems on it. Made me wonder "WTF?!!" when you look around the room and only about 10 out of 100 kids taking it were elctrical and the rest of us were Civil??


It's not that I distrust you, ROBIAMEIT, it's just that I find it unfortunate that you did all that work and ended up with a degree that has a stigma attached to it. In engineering circles, people with any kind of engineering technology degree are looked down upon. The fact that you have gotten your PE (you have, haven't you?) should lift most of that stigma.

This whole discussion reminds me of when I first graduated from Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology. Anybody that had never heard of the college before would ask me "Is that one of those 2 year colleges?" That pissed me off pretty bad since I had to work my ass off to squeak by with a C average in 4 years.


----------



## Roy T.

ROBIAMEIT said:


> wilheldp_PE ~
> my degree is in Structural Design and Construction Engineering Technology.
> 
> As far as the "Engineering programs are geared toward development of conceptual skills, and consist of a sequence of engineering fundamentals and design courses, built on a foundation of complex mathematics and science courses. Engineering technology programs are oriented toward application, and provide their students introductory mathematics and science courses, and only a qualitative introduction to engineering fundamentals." statement I would have to disagree 100%!
> 
> i dont know of ANY Civil Engineer who took more math than i did, or physics or chemistry, or any other "complex mathematics and science courses". It simply isnt true.
> 
> I know the ONLY reason i had trouble with the FE exam was because of the inordinate amount of electrical problems on it. Made me wonder "WTF?!!" when you look around the room and only about 10 out of 100 kids taking it were elctrical and the rest of us were Civil??


honestly - I think you sold yourself short getting the ET degree rather than the real thing. Penn State is a great school too. I can imagine the frustration at having your degree being pegged as "inferior", the only thing I can say is that you should have done a little more research before investing the time and money.

An ET will never get you the same respect, or money, than an ABET Engineering degree would. You may posess great intellect --- but it will not change that objective reality.


----------



## Paul S

ROBIAMEIT said:


> wilheldp_PE ~
> i dont know of ANY Civil Engineer who took more math than i did, or physics or chemistry, or any other "complex mathematics and science courses". It simply isnt true.
> 
> I know the ONLY reason i had trouble with the FE exam was because of the inordinate amount of electrical problems on it. Made me wonder "WTF?!!" when you look around the room and only about 10 out of 100 kids taking it were elctrical and the rest of us were Civil??


I am not discrediting your work, but according to what Penn State lists as the curriculum for that program, the highest math course required is Calculus II. Penn State. From my ABET accredited BS in Mechanical Engineering program, I recall having at least 2 or 3 higher math courses beyond Calculus II.

I also recall having 2 or 3 electrical courses, and I didn't go for Electrical Engineering.


----------



## Chucktown PE

As a civil engineer at Clemson I had Calculus I, Calculus II, Multivariable Calculus, Linear Algebra, and Differential Equations.

We also had to take Physics with Electricity and Magnetism as well as a Circuits class.


----------



## Supe

Roy T. said:


> honestly - I think you sold yourself short getting the ET degree rather than the real thing. Penn State is a great school too. I can imagine the frustration at having your degree being pegged as "inferior", the only thing I can say is that you should have done a little more research before investing the time and money.
> An ET will never get you the same respect, *or money*, than an ABET Engineering degree would. You may posess great intellect --- but it will not change that objective reality.


Not too sure about the money issue. While it may differ in other fields (civil, structural, etc), my starting salary in the welding field was very much in the mix or more so than the starting salaries of many ABET-accredited grads. Granted, welding is a bit of an odd-man out, but I definitely wouldn't get carried away with a salary-based blanket statement. Quite a few of the guys working for us don't even have a college degree, and are making well over $100k before per piem based on construction knowledge and experience alone.


----------



## MonteBiker

ROBIAMEIT said:


> my degree is in Structural Design and Construction Engineering Technology.
> i dont know of ANY Civil Engineer who took more math than i did, or physics or chemistry, or any other "complex mathematics and science courses". It simply isnt true.


That is an awfully bold statement and I know that I can dispute you. Both of my degrees (BS ans MS) are in Civil. Even before my masters, I had taken more calculus, linear algebra and ordinary differential equations. I took partial differential equations in grad school for fun. I believe that up to ODE was a requirement for Civil.

I might even argue about the science part. CE students typically have to take wastewater, which is much more heavily weighted towards science than Basic Management... I seemed to have a majority of the classes that you took as well although condensed all of the construction courses down to a semester.

Here is the current curriculum for Penn State's Structural Design and Construction Engineering Tech program (it may have been updated though since you have been through...):

http://www.hbg.psu.edu/sdcet/

From what I can tell, it looks like a cross between a construction engineering and a construction management degree...


----------



## MonteBiker

Chucktown PE said:


> As a civil engineer at Clemson I had Calculus I, Calculus II, Multivariable Calculus, Linear Algebra, and Differential Equations.
> We also had to take Physics with Electricity and Magnetism as well as a Circuits class.



"I am not discrediting your work, but according to what Penn State lists as the curriculum for that program, the highest math course required is Calculus II. Penn State. From my ABET accredited BS in Mechanical Engineering program, I recall having at least 2 or 3 higher math courses beyond Calculus II.

I also recall having 2 or 3 electrical courses, and I didn't go for Electrical Engineering."

Apparently everyone else that wants to discredit you statement also types faster than me as well...


----------



## Capt Worley PE

ROBIAMEIT said:


> i dont know of ANY Civil Engineer who took more math than i did, or physics or chemistry, or any other "complex mathematics and science courses". It simply isnt true.


Hmmm...looks like the highest Math was 141, which is the bottom requirement for engineering. I know I did 141, 142, 241, 242, 520, 544, and 555 just off the top of my head.

But I'm mechanical....


----------



## benbo

Supe said:


> Not too sure about the money issue. Quite a few of the guys working for us don't even have a college degree, and are making well over $100k before per piem based on construction knowledge and experience alone.


True enough - one should never use money as a gauge. Out here a lot of the certified welders and control room operators earn more (especially with overtime) than PhD professors at the state schools.


----------



## Roy T.

MonteBiker said:


> That is an awfully bold statement and I know that I can dispute you. Both of my degrees (BS ans MS) are in Civil. Even before my masters, I had taken more calculus, linear algebra and ordinary differential equations. I took partial differential equations in grad school for fun. I believe that up to ODE was a requirement for Civil.
> I might even argue about the science part. CE students typically have to take wastewater, which is much more heavily weighted towards science than Basic Management... I seemed to have a majority of the classes that you took as well although condensed all of the construction courses down to a semester.
> 
> Here is the current curriculum for Penn State's Structural Design and Construction Engineering Tech program (it may have been updated though since you have been through...):
> 
> http://www.hbg.psu.edu/sdcet/
> 
> From what I can tell, it looks like a cross between a construction engineering and a construction management degree...


This does look a little like UF's building construction program. Those guys did make some pretty decent money, more than civil eng, until housing crashed. A lot of them, that I know personally, have struggled since. some have tried to pass themselves off as "engineers" on business cards - only to be slapped down by the board.

Contractor != Engineer


----------



## Matt-NM

ROBIAMEIT said:


> i graduated from Penn State with an 'Engineering Technology" Degree. Went 4 1/2 years, took all the usual pre-engineering classes and spent my Junior and Senior yr taking MASSIVE amounts of very specific classes in my field of study. PLEASE don't sell us "technology" degree holders short. OF COURSE our curiculum is ABET accredited. IMO Penn States Technology program is better then the typical "Engineering" degree.


I don't think engineers are trying to sell "Technology" degree holders short by any means. Engineering technologists have their place in the industry. But technology degree holders have to realize that there is a reason for the two separate programs. They are simply not identical in level of difficulty. This is not purely my opinion, but can be easily observed by comparing the two curriculums. They are focused completely differently.

To say that the engineering technology program has much more mathematics and higher level classes than Civil engineers is flat out wrong. I personally am Mechanical, but for the most part all "engineering" degrees regardless of school are going to require Calculus I, II, III, Differential Equations, and Linear Algebra. Your program only requires Calculus I, with an option for Calculus II. And in engineering programs, the math classes are the easy part for many people.

I think engineering technologists would get much more respect if they realized their role in the field and presented themselves as a compliment to engineers, rather than trying to go toe-to-toe with them. Every engineering technologist I know has said the same thing about themselves from day 1. "We are engineers but better because we are more hands on". This esentially ended the career of one of them in my company. Since this mentality seems to be coming from many different parts of the country, I have a feeling that the wrong impression is being instilled in the technology students minds from day 1 by the schools. They are sending out the idea that "technologists" are automatically enigneers, just like "engineering" students are engineers.

A statement like "The technology program is better than the engineering program" is going to bring out the "big guns" of this board for sure, as you have already seen. Again, we are not trying to discredit you or other technologists at all. But I think in the long run you will be better off with the attitude of "How can I help engineers do their job", as opposed to the current general mentality, which is an unwinnable battle.


----------



## kevo_55

opcorn:


----------



## MGX

ET is definitely not the same as engineering. I did investigate a 4 year ET program in fire protection, but chose civil instead. Most could figure out that the ET degree would have been more lucrative but, it came down to personal preference.

The ET program requires only technical calculus I and II while my civil degree requires Calculus I-IV plus ODE along with two semesters of calculus-based physics and a long line of science classes.

Freon; how you handled that kid without completely shattering him is beyond me.


----------



## Fluvial

Chucktown PE said:


> Georgia Tech may have the best academic reputation, but in our company a lot of the Georgia Tech grads (particularly the ones that graduated in the last 5 years) don't know how to wipe their asses without a manual of some kind.


Hmm. To be honest, I don't know any real recent grads, just folks I've practiced with over the years.

Rob, I agree with what Matt said - there is nothing wrong with a Technology degree, but it's not the same as a CE degree. Just as a psychiatrist isn't the same as a psychologist; related, but not the same.

I know the point has been beaten to death here, but my degree requirements included Calculus I thru IV, Differential Equations, Statistics, and a course called Engineering Mathematics (after the Calculus courses).


----------



## MonteBiker

MonteBiker said:


> That is an awfully bold statement and I know that I can dispute you. Both of my degrees (BS ans MS) are in Civil. Even before my masters, I had taken more calculus, linear algebra and ordinary differential equations. I took partial differential equations in grad school for fun. I believe that up to ODE was a requirement for Civil.
> I might even argue about the science part. CE students typically have to take wastewater, which is much more heavily weighted towards science than Basic Management... I seemed to have a majority of the classes that you took as well although condensed all of the construction courses down to a semester.
> 
> Here is the current curriculum for Penn State's Structural Design and Construction Engineering Tech program (it may have been updated though since you have been through...):
> 
> http://www.hbg.psu.edu/sdcet/
> 
> From what I can tell, it looks like a cross between a construction engineering and a construction management degree...


I did come to the funny realization that my wife, a middle school teacher, also has way more math than the ET program requires. And also, that I could have tested out of all of the math and physics for the program straight out of high school (except that I had taken more college level physics in high school as well).


----------



## C-Dog

The school I adjunct at offers a civil engineering tech degree. this is what they say



> in the Civil Engineering Technology program receive an education that stresses the practical application of engineering principles.





> Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering Technology program is accredited by the Technology Accreditation Commission of the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (TAC of ABET)...





> Based on the rigor of their academic preparation and consequent ability to apply engineering solutions to real-world problems, the graduates of this program are highly sought by industry recruiters. Senior Civil Engineering Technology students are eligible to take the Fundamentals of Engineering (F.E.) Exam which, when combined with the requisite amount of engineering experience, qualifies them to apply for the Professional Engineer (P.E.) Exam.


What is not stated, is that while you can take the FE, inorder to take the PE exam, one must show 2x the experience compared to an engineering degree (@ least in CT).


----------



## roadwreck

Chucktown PE said:


> Georgia Tech may have the best academic reputation, but in our company a lot of the Georgia Tech grads (particularly the ones that graduated in the last 5 years) don't know how to wipe their asses without a manual of some kind.


Georgia Tech grads are okay, but I'd take an engineer from Europe over a Georgia Tech grad any day of the week. Everything is better over in Europe.


----------



## Fluvial

I think we already had that joke over on Page 1.


----------



## Chucktown PE

Fluvial said:


> I think we already had that joke over on Page 1.



What joke?


----------



## roadwreck

Fluvial said:


> I think we already had that joke over on Page 1.


Sorry, I don't have a manual on how to read this thread so I'm a bit out of my element.


----------



## Kephart P.E.

[No message]


----------



## Kephart P.E.

Paul S said:


> I am not discrediting your work, but according to what Penn State lists as the curriculum for that program, the highest math course required is Calculus II. Penn State. From my ABET accredited BS in Mechanical Engineering program, I recall having at least 2 or 3 higher math courses beyond Calculus II.
> I also recall having 2 or 3 electrical courses, and I didn't go for Electrical Engineering.



Try on 4 more classes for my BS in Mech Engr from Oregon State.


----------



## Kephart P.E.

Fluvial said:


> Hmm. To be honest, I don't know any real recent grads, just folks I've practiced with over the years.
> Rob, I agree with what Matt said - there is nothing wrong with a Technology degree, but it's not the same as a CE degree. Just as a psychiatrist isn't the same as a psychologist; related, but not the same.
> 
> I know the point has been beaten to death here, but my degree requirements included Calculus I thru IV, Differential Equations, Statistics, and a course called Engineering Mathematics (after the Calculus courses).



My most hated was one called Numerical Methods, that thing made Differential Equations seem practical.


----------



## Chucktown PE

In the engineering department (in addition to the 5 math classes) we had to take engineering statistics and numerical methods. Those were fun classes. I loved solving equations with Newton-Raphson to 5 iterations, manually.


----------



## Chucktown PE

roadwreck said:


> Sorry, I don't have a manual on how to read this thread so I'm a bit out of my element.



Sorry rw, I shouldn't have made the blanket statement. I should have said most of the Georgia Tech grads that I work with. It is frustrating to always hear about how great GT engineers are. I know they have kick ass research programs and such but my experience with their graduates has been pretty bad. Of course they worked for the government for a few years as well so that may be what has made them completely oblivious to the fact that we are trying to make a profit.


----------

