B.S. plus 30

[ROBIAMEIT]

I agree with previous statements . . . .

this B+30 crap is going to drive people OUT of engineering . . . .

after going through ALL THE CRAP to get an undergrad degree WHO IN THIER RIGHT MIND is going to want to take more classes . . . . .

All i could think was TG I AM DONE!! . . . THEN the EIT . . .THEN the PE . . . . .

AND FOR WHAT PAY????

you have GOT to be kidding me!!

if i HAD to do another 30 i'd be looking to get into sales or teaching . . . . they make MORE (SALES!) or just as much money without the headaches!!

 

[Guest]

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.

I see this problem every day with all sorts of professionals, not just engineers. That was why I elevated my argument to the structure of the educational system - it is archaic and isn't allowing for the top achievers to continue to perform at thier best while maintaining an EQUITABLE education for those who graduate with a high school diploma.

[rant]

It sickens me to listen to people ***** about the youth of this country. In many respects, I believe MY generation has betrayed them by not keeping educational curriculum current and RELEVANT. What does it mean to graduate with a high school diploma anymore? I know several recipients of high school diplomas that are FUNCTIONALLY ILLITERATE - my stepson to name one.

The only way to shore up the integrity of professional licensure and education in general is to get away from the dummy down, everyone needs to feel good about themselves principles. While I promote and encourage programs that address learning disabilities and even physical and/or emotional problems, it doesn't mean that the whole of the education system needs to be dropped.

If I were a teenager, say 16 - I would drop out of school now too. What is the point? Spend a full day for five days each week in classes for two more years for things that will have relatively little impact on my ability to earn $, so I can spend even more money on a college education where the tuition is increased by 5% - 10% per year? Has anyone run the NPV calculations on the loss in income?

The dummy-down trickle down is beginning to be seen in our ranks now too ....

[/rant]

On a slightly different note, my wife is an interim director for clinical services at a rehabilitation skilled nursing facility. She has nearly twenty years of experience working her way up through the ranks and understands the duties and responbilities of each position quite well. She can ably and effectively direct those skilled nursing services because of her experience - not education. She has found herself in the position of releasing staff due to negligent care because of how woefully unprepared nurses are due to the short education (1-yr LPN, 2-yr RN) + clinicals and a relatively easy licensing exam you take directly out of school. Unfortunately, many of the young men and women she encounters were doing it simply for the money and just trying to follow the motions - actions that can end you up in deep voodoo, especially when it comes to endangering someone's life. I hear these horror stories nightly ... not a pretty sight!

IMHO, for the engineering profession, we have got to integrate 'hands-on' time with education and if that happened to lead to a BS+30 approach I would be in favor of such a move IF the PE experience requirement would be reduced by a pre-determined factor. This would be a fair, equitable way to increase the integrity of the education through a mandatory externship and promote involvement of practicing engineers (PE's) in the education system.

:2cents:

JR

 

[C-Dog]

...we have got to integrate 'hands-on' time with education and if that happened to lead to a BS+30 approach I would be in favor of such a move IF the PE experience requirement would be reduced by a pre-determined factor. This would be a fair, equitable way to increase the integrity of the education through a mandatory externship and promote involvement of practicing engineers (PE's) in the education system.

I don't think you can reduce the experience requirement even with the BS+30. I probably could not have passed the PE exam under the experience requirement. I think in those first couple of years out of school, your head is spinning, just trying to figure out the company culture, standards....

:2cents:

 

[squishles10]

I don't think you can reduce the experience requirement even with the BS+30. I probably could not have passed the PE exam under the experience requirement. I think in those first couple of years out of school, your head is spinning, just trying to figure out the company culture, standards....
:2cents:

The current California requirement is just 2 years, and although it is with the BS+30, with a Master's degree, it's only 1. Granted, there are more tests there, but I know quite a few that pass all on the first try, both after 1 and 2 years of experience. I don't think experience has done anything to help me on this exam. My master's degree has given me the depth area knowledge and references that I would not have otherwise had, but until they start asking about modeling, my experience was useless. A masters and a review class right out of school would have made passing this exam a lot easier than it is right now.

 

[Katiebug]

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

Some of the people at my corporate research center prove this regularly. I had a field visit in January completely wrecked because the field engineer and I spent the week babysitting a PhD with more brains than sense. We had to constantly tell him not to touch things and that he simply could NOT do what he wanted to do, for reasons of safety. The man is brilliant with aero-acoustics, but he made me nervous as heck around rotating machinery.

He's just one example. I know a few guys and gals with doctorates who are great with hands-on work and in doing fundamental engineering work - but most are completely clueless on both counts. Some of the finest engineers in my organization have only a bachelor's degree, although many have a master's that they picked up along the course of a career.

IMHO, for the engineering profession, we have got to integrate 'hands-on' time with education and if that happened to lead to a BS+30 approach I would be in favor of such a move IF the PE experience requirement would be reduced by a pre-determined factor. This would be a fair, equitable way to increase the integrity of the education through a mandatory externship and promote involvement of practicing engineers (PE's) in the education system.

Up in the Great White North where all engineers have to have a P.Eng to work legally as an "engineer", there is still an experience requirement. In Ontario, an EIT is obtained by virtue of graduating from an approved college program in engineering (or by testing for many foreign graduates). Four years of documented engineering experience later, the EIT takes a 3-hour ethics test and upon passing, is a licensed P.Eng. The main difference is that for people with that approved education, there's no FE or PE-type exams; licensure is education- and experience-based without a technical test component.

I would be OK with such a system - documented experience in the field is important, IMO. I would not want to let an engineer be licensed without proving that he or she can do fundamental work in their area of specialization. I've encountered a few really incompetent/stupid graduate engineers, the kind of people where you wonder how the hell they got through engineering school. They're the ones who seem to go to law or B-school after a year or two...

 

[C-Dog]

More changes to BS +30...

http://www.ncees.org/licensure/licensure_e.../le_2008_04.pdf

Now goes into effect 2020 and some minor wording changes

 

[IlPadrino]

More changes to BS +30...
http://www.ncees.org/licensure/licensure_e.../le_2008_04.pdf

Now goes into effect 2020 and some minor wording changes

Note that this is a PROPOSED change that has yet to be presented to the UPLG Committee.

Two things jumped out at me from the articles (quoted below)...

Another significant change apparent in the proposed language above is that the implementation date for the bachelor’s plus 30 has been moved five years to 2020. This was suggested by the Bachelor’s plus 30 Task Force in order to provide adequate time for the Council to work out the details of implementation, to allow Member Boards the time to work out the details of the new requirements,and to allow engineering students planning to pursue licensure to prepare their plans of study accordingly. This postponement will be presented by UPLG as a separate motion.

It takes 12 (twelve!) years to work out the details of implementation? I can't believe anyone seriously believes that (or am I just too clueless on how the world works?). Regarding the time to allow engineering students planning to pursue licensure to prepare plans of study... well that's BS flag #2. You can't start preparing until you've got your undergraduate degree done, and last time I checked, getting 30 credits of graduate level education doesn't take 12 years, even for the most part-time of student.

And this leads me to a larger question/concern... one of motivation.

The debate over additional education requirements for engineering licensure, and the implementation of the requirement at the state level, is an ongoing process that indicates the Council’s commitment to ensuring that future licensees possess the necessary knowledge to protect the public through their work. It also indicates our commitment to upholding and even enhancing the level of prestige associated with holding the professional engineer license.

If the issue is protecting the public, how can we afford to wait 12 years? And given everyone will be grandfathered, it's clear there's a recognition that experience serves the same end as education (otherwise, you'd have to denounce the horror of grandfathering!) So why not build that into the experience vs. education equation?

I'm curious to know how others think this will uphold (AND EVEN) enhance the level of prestige associated with licensure. Personally, I'm throwing BS flag #3. I could maybe see an advanced degree, but I don't know that anyone's going to care about 30 credits of graduate-level humanities education (which, if I understand right, would count towards the 30 credits - it doesn't have to be engineering related).

Thanks for the link - I've got to get on their mailing lists.

 

[Dleg]

^^Exactly. If it's prestige they're (we're) after, why not just go ahead and require an MS or ME? At least that way there's a degree associated with the extra work.

And I still wonder why ABET is not a more important player in all of this. If we as engineers feel it is important to have a higher-level degree so that we can seem more on the same level as lawyers (which to me, is a big step DOWN), then why not change the entire education system and offer a graduate degree simlar to a JD that then becomes the pre-requisite to becoming a professional engineer?

I have a feeling that there is a very BIG reason ABET is not a bigger player in this: they simply don't agree, because their primary motivation is education, not prestige.

Yeah, this is starting to stink of BS more and more.

 

[Mike in Gastonia]

It takes 12 (twelve!) years to work out the details of implementation? I can't believe anyone seriously believes that (or am I just too clueless on how the world works?).

It seems like one of the previous articles said something about taking a long time for states to get their legislation changed.

 

[Steve]

how do you think this affects existing PE's that do not have an MS, does the additional requirement diminsh thier credentials?

 

[IlPadrino]

It seems like one of the previous articles said something about taking a long time for states to get their legislation changed.

I thought this was about a model law that States were free to take or leave, although obviously encouraged to take.

 

[snickerd3]

I thought this was about a model law that States were free to take or leave, although obviously encouraged to take.

Illinois has basically already said they'll do what NCEES wants, they just need the details to change the rules.

 

[IlPadrino]

Illinois has basically already said they'll do what NCEES wants, they just need the details to change the rules.

Yeah... so it doesn't take TWELVE years to organize.

 

[JPGOLF]

We all can express our opinion and can have different point of views. With that said it is OK Chaos, I do not feel singled out. You did it with class and respect so no worries my friend. But the truth is that it is frutrating. Most of the times NCEES "suggests" and the fudging state boards do not even flinch and do what NCEES "suggested". Who the heck took the decission of not reporting scores? Why? How about the calculators? What are the criteria to include a calc on the list of banned or allowed? Things like that are the ones that really bother me.
One of these days NCEES will suggest the Boards to make us take the test every 5 years so we can renew the license. Sounds crazy? Wait and see. What will we win with that? Nothing...nada...What will NCEES and the Boards will win?....$$$$$$$$hhhhhh.

Maybe I am over the top but it is the way I feel. It is very uncomfortable to have an organization, just one, having so much decissional power over our profession. It is not fair.

Hey man,

I always assumed the not reporting scores was a faster and cheaper way to grade exams. That way the machine only grades until it knows you passed and moves on. WHat do yuo think?

JPGOLF

 

[Guest]

^^^ Actually, each exam is graded in whole and those numbers go through a series of statistical analysis by a select group of subject matter experts like the ones below ..

:17:

JR