No Studying

[VAPSU]

Show me another major in which you graduate college knowing essentially three major fields of engineering (structural, mechanical, and electrical) and have to do a thesis just to get an undergraduate degree.

I've spent a great deal of time on this website defending the AE degree from assaults by a particular *****. But this statement is absurd. AE majors may know the very basics of these three disciplines, but they certainly do not have the in depth specific knowledge that people with these degrees possess. I'm sure it's a rigorous discipline that has its own requirements and knowledge base, but it is not the same as earning all three degrees in EE, CE, and ME. You could use a little humility yourself IMO.

I don't care how "strick" the admission process is.

I never said it's the same as earning all three degrees, and it is much more than just basic knowledge of each topic. After 3 years studying each topic and taking advanced classes in all of them I think it's a very accurate statement that you graduate college knowing three major fields, maybe not as in depth as someone who focused solely on one topic (besides of course the topic you focus on), but still enough that you have more than just a basic understanding. Also keep in mind that after the first three years you have two years of classes solely in one of them, so you have a very in depth knowledge of a certain engineering and a very good understanding of two others.

 

[benbo]

Show me another major in which you graduate college knowing essentially three major fields of engineering (structural, mechanical, and electrical) and have to do a thesis just to get an undergraduate degree.

I've spent a great deal of time on this website defending the AE degree from assaults by a particular *****. But this statement is absurd. AE majors may know the very basics of these three disciplines, but they certainly do not have the in depth specific knowledge that people with these degrees possess. I'm sure it's a rigorous discipline that has its own requirements and knowledge base, but it is not the same as earning all three degrees in EE, CE, and ME. You could use a little humility yourself IMO.

I don't care how "strick" the admission process is.

I never said it's the same as earning all three degrees, and it is much more than just basic knowledge of each topic. After 3 years studying each topic and taking advanced classes in all of them I think it's a very accurate statement that you graduate college knowing three major fields, maybe not as in depth as someone who focused solely on one topic (besides of course the topic you focus on), but still enough that you have more than just a basic understanding. Also keep in mind that after the first three years you have two years of classes solely in one of them, so you have a very in depth knowledge of a certain engineering and a very good understanding of two others.

Well, I don't know where you went to school, but I looked up the requirements for Cal Poly SLO and I assume they're typical.

http://www.catalog.calpoly.edu/2009pubcat/...ept/arce_bs.pdf

They require precisely one course in EE - basic lower division circuit theory.

By those standards you could say I know civil engineering because I took one lower division course in statics and dynamics as part of a breadth requirement. I'd say unless you have the equivalent of a minor in something you only have a basic knowledge of it. Even with a minor your knowledge is not much more than basic. I got within about a semester from a degree in biophysics but I don't claim to know physics anywhere near like a real physicist.

If your school was vastly different, let me know the name of it and I'll check it out.

 

[DynaMechEng]

Show me another major in which you graduate college knowing essentially three major fields of engineering (structural, mechanical, and electrical) and have to do a thesis just to get an undergraduate degree.

I've spent a great deal of time on this website defending the AE degree from assaults by a particular *****. But this statement is absurd. AE majors may know the very basics of these three disciplines, but they certainly do not have the in depth specific knowledge that people with these degrees possess. I'm sure it's a rigorous discipline that has its own requirements and knowledge base, but it is not the same as earning all three degrees in EE, CE, and ME. You could use a little humility yourself IMO.

I don't care how "strick" the admission process is.

I never said it's the same as earning all three degrees, and it is much more than just basic knowledge of each topic. After 3 years studying each topic and taking advanced classes in all of them I think it's a very accurate statement that you graduate college knowing three major fields, maybe not as in depth as someone who focused solely on one topic (besides of course the topic you focus on), but still enough that you have more than just a basic understanding. Also keep in mind that after the first three years you have two years of classes solely in one of them, so you have a very in depth knowledge of a certain engineering and a very good understanding of two others.

Well, I don't know where you went to school, but I looked up the requirements for Cal Poly SLO and I assume they're typical.

http://www.catalog.calpoly.edu/2009pubcat/...ept/arce_bs.pdf

They require precisely one course in EE - basic lower division circuit theory.

By those standards you could say I know civil engineering because I took one lower division course in statics and dynamics as part of a breadth requirement. I'd say unless you have the equivalent of a minor in something you only have a basic knowledge of it. Even with a minor your knowledge is not much more than basic. I got within about a semester from a degree in biophysics but I don't claim to know physics anywhere near like a real physicist.

If your school was vastly different, let me know the name of it and I'll check it out.

It's actually a fairly impressive list of courses, but with the exception of a few (which are tailored to building design from the ground up), it's very much a general engineering degree. Agree that's there's very little depth to this curriculum. I'm an ME, and I see no vibrations, heat transfer, control systems, FEA, etc.

 

[navyasw02]

"Architectural Engineering is neither architecture nor engineering. Discuss." - Linda Richman

 

[fccecc]

You can argue until your face turn blue. But the reality is Engineers with traditional engineering degree (CE, ME , ChemE, etc) ALWAYS see other non-traditional degree such as Arch Eng, Eng Tech, Construction Management, etc. more or less jack of all trade engineers (i.e. Engineer wanna be). And it's not over yet, even with a traditional Eng degree and PE won't cut it anymore. Many Gov Eng or higher up Eng Management positions require PE & a Master degree of Civil nowadays. That's said the latest trend is requiring Engineers to be more in depth rather than go general. And for England, a Master degree is a requirement before sitting the RE Exam (long time ago).

With Post like this "Passing PE without study" truly shows that why NCESS should beef up the standard. As the leading country ( USA ) of the world, we should have the highest and toughest engineering licensing standard, not the other way around.

You may say engineering is not an exact science. Then tell me, where the heck have you been when we ( USA ) sent man to the moon?

There is no compromise for Engineering Standard, period.

 

[fccecc]

"Architectural Engineering is neither architecture nor engineering. Discuss." - Linda Richman

"But rather a good way to sound smart." - Roseanne Barr

 

[navyasw02]

You can argue until your face turn blue. But the reality is Engineers with traditional engineering degree (CE, ME , ChemE, etc) ALWAYS see other non-traditional degree such as Arch Eng, Eng Tech, Construction Management, etc. more or less jack of all trade engineers (i.e. Engineer wanna be). And it's not over yet, even with a traditional Eng degree and PE won't cut it anymore. Many Gov Eng or higher up Eng Management positions require PE & a Master degree of Civil nowadays. That's said the latest trend is requiring Engineers to be more in depth rather than go general. And for England, a Master degree is a requirement before sitting the RE Exam (long time ago).
With Post like this "Passing PE without study" truly shows that why NCESS should beef up the standard. As the leading country ( USA ) of the world, we should have the highest and toughest engineering licensing standard, not the other way around.

You may say engineering is not an exact science. Then tell me, where the heck have you been when we ( USA ) sent man to the moon?

There is no compromise for Engineering Standard, period.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but the problem is how do you do this? There's no way you can require every engineer to be licensed, no way to require that everyone who is licensed have an advanced degree like doctors and lawyers, and no way to require that people who meet those first two requirements receive pay and compensation worthy of a profession with those kinds of necessary qualifications. Until you can do all three of those, then there is only so much NCEES can do to raise the standards within the engineering community.

 

[benbo]

With Post like this "Passing PE without study" truly shows that why NCESS should beef up the standard. As the leading country ( USA ) of the world, we should have the highest and toughest engineering licensing standard, not the other way around.

Hmmm. Remember this post you made a few days ago -

I almost Cry, was so scared all these months, can't do mush just pray to GOD. It has been a long wait. After all the PE was the 2nd most difficult exam in my life, the hardest for me was FE/EIT, 5 years ago Oct.
Thank you GOD. I passed - 1st time. ME- HVAC.

Good Luck Everyone and Thanks for the support and info from this site. Truly the best source for FE/PE Exam.

And you want the test to be harder? I think you are getting way too worked up as a result of a few posts on an internet forum. The test is not impossibly hard, which is why they require education and recommnedations to become licensed. But most people have to study at least some for the test, unless they are really lucky, perform techincal work regularly, or are really sharp and good at taking tests. So don't sweat it so much.

 

[VAPSU]

Show me another major in which you graduate college knowing essentially three major fields of engineering (structural, mechanical, and electrical) and have to do a thesis just to get an undergraduate degree.

I've spent a great deal of time on this website defending the AE degree from assaults by a particular *****. But this statement is absurd. AE majors may know the very basics of these three disciplines, but they certainly do not have the in depth specific knowledge that people with these degrees possess. I'm sure it's a rigorous discipline that has its own requirements and knowledge base, but it is not the same as earning all three degrees in EE, CE, and ME. You could use a little humility yourself IMO.

I don't care how "strick" the admission process is.

I never said it's the same as earning all three degrees, and it is much more than just basic knowledge of each topic. After 3 years studying each topic and taking advanced classes in all of them I think it's a very accurate statement that you graduate college knowing three major fields, maybe not as in depth as someone who focused solely on one topic (besides of course the topic you focus on), but still enough that you have more than just a basic understanding. Also keep in mind that after the first three years you have two years of classes solely in one of them, so you have a very in depth knowledge of a certain engineering and a very good understanding of two others.

Well, I don't know where you went to school, but I looked up the requirements for Cal Poly SLO and I assume they're typical.

http://www.catalog.calpoly.edu/2009pubcat/...ept/arce_bs.pdf

They require precisely one course in EE - basic lower division circuit theory.

By those standards you could say I know civil engineering because I took one lower division course in statics and dynamics as part of a breadth requirement. I'd say unless you have the equivalent of a minor in something you only have a basic knowledge of it. Even with a minor your knowledge is not much more than basic. I got within about a semester from a degree in biophysics but I don't claim to know physics anywhere near like a real physicist.

If your school was vastly different, let me know the name of it and I'll check it out.

That is actually completely different than the AE programs I've seen. That program deals a lot more with simply structures and architecture rather than all the building components that other AE programs focus on. Although I do think you're completely missing my point in that I'm not saying that I know as much as the electrical guys I work with, but I have done electrical system design before and I have more than just a basic understanding of the systems, but I would never say I'm an electrical engineer. On the other hand though I went the structural option and I know just as much as the civils I work with (for building design at least) since we all take the same building structures classes, and actually even more than some civil programs. None of the civils I work with ever took classes on connections or advanced seismic design or finite element analysis, and granted every college is different so I only know how my program stacks up to some of my co-workers programs so there could easily be civil programs out there that do have those classes.

I guess the big point here is that people really shouldn't talk about things they know nothing about. Unless you've been through the program you have no idea what's involved with it. It's very frustrating when people say that it's not real engineering when in fact I went through all the exact same building structures classes as a civil would have at my college. The difference between my degree and a civil degree at my college is instead of taking classes on transportation or water resources or any of the other civil disciplines, I took classes on electrical and mechanical engineering and construction management. I kind of feel that if they started calling it Building Engineering rather than Architectural engineering people would take it more seriously. Those silly architects making life difficult yet again!

 

[benbo]

That is actually completely different than the AE programs I've seen. That program deals a lot more with simply structures and architecture rather than all the building components that other AE programs focus on. Although I do think you're completely missing my point in that I'm not saying that I know as much as the electrical guys I work with, but I have done electrical system design before and I have more than just a basic understanding of the systems, but I would never say I'm an electrical engineer. On the other hand though I went the structural option and I know just as much as the civils I work with (for building design at least) since we all take the same building structures classes, and actually even more than some civil programs. None of the civils I work with ever took classes on connections or advanced seismic design or finite element analysis, and granted every college is different so I only know how my program stacks up to some of my co-workers programs so there could easily be civil programs out there that do have those classes.
I guess the big point here is that people really shouldn't talk about things they know nothing about. Unless you've been through the program you have no idea what's involved with it. It's very frustrating when people say that it's not real engineering when in fact I went through all the exact same building structures classes as a civil would have at my college. The difference between my degree and a civil degree at my college is instead of taking classes on transportation or water resources or any of the other civil disciplines, I took classes on electrical and mechanical engineering and construction management. I kind of feel that if they started calling it Building Engineering rather than Architectural engineering people would take it more seriously. Those silly architects making life difficult yet again!

If you're saying you have more than a basic understanding of designing electrical systems for buildings, that could be true. Some Master Electricians could probably say that as well. That's vastly different than having more than a basic knowledge of EE which is what you wrote in your initial post. As far as the comparison to civil or structuiral engineering, I won't commment since I don't know.

But it is not impossible that you know more than basic EE. I know really sharp technicians who do have more than a basic grasp of EE. The issue is not what you learned or know. It's what the typical AE learns or knows - and more to the point, what the typical AE program teaches. . That's why I'd still be curious to look at the program at your school, since it is strange that schools would have such different programs of study. I think ABET accredited EE is fairly standardized. Or if you don't want to give out your school, give me a couple examples of programs you've seen. I think Cal Poly is a fairly well known middle of the road engineering school.

Believe me, I am more on your side than not. I spent multiple posts on here (and was subjected to numerous insults about my own qualifications) debating some JackA$$ who refused to see the difference between AE and Architecture (he called them both Architorture). He went on about how a trained goat could do it or something like that. Of course this fellow believed that pretty much everybody but him was no better than a trained goat.

But I often wonder why people can't seem to defend their profession without putting it up on some sort of pedestal. IMO AE appears to be a rigorous, math based discipline equivalent to, but no better than any other discipline.

 

[Shanster]

I took the California Civil-Structural exam and the CA State Specific Exams and passed all three first try. I've been out of college 2-1/2 years. (I did a 5 year BS/MS program.)

My only studying consisted of doing the Civil breadth (morning) practice problems once in the NCEES Civil sample question book and then doing the NCEES Structural I practice problems once. I would have "failed" had it been the real thing based on the number correct I got taking those practice exams. A lot of typos in those practice exams, btw.

I reviewed for the State Specific Seismic exam during my 4 hour flight to CA (Hiner's Seismic Design Review Workbook) and then I reviewed for the surveying (Wirshings" Intro to Surveying) during the hour and a half lunch between my seismic exam and my surveying exam.

 

[Badger]

You can argue until your face turn blue. But the reality is Engineers with traditional engineering degree (CE, ME , ChemE, etc) ALWAYS see other non-traditional degree such as Arch Eng, Eng Tech, Construction Management, etc. more or less jack of all trade engineers (i.e. Engineer wanna be). And it's not over yet, even with a traditional Eng degree and PE won't cut it anymore. Many Gov Eng or higher up Eng Management positions require PE & a Master degree of Civil nowadays. That's said the latest trend is requiring Engineers to be more in depth rather than go general. And for England, a Master degree is a requirement before sitting the RE Exam (long time ago).
With Post like this "Passing PE without study" truly shows that why NCESS should beef up the standard. As the leading country ( USA ) of the world, we should have the highest and toughest engineering licensing standard, not the other way around.

You may say engineering is not an exact science. Then tell me, where the heck have you been when we ( USA ) sent man to the moon?

There is no compromise for Engineering Standard, period.

Yep in a perfect world, and engineering grad should be able to pass the FE/EIT exam first try, and with 4 years engineering experience a typical engineer should be able to pass the PE with minimal studying, and obviously some do.

There is no crime in having to study to pass, and I am envious of those who are well versed enough in there discipline to pass the PE with little effort. It does not lower the value of the PE.

I think most engineers would agree that having a masters degree makes a new engineer more valuable or desirable then an engineer with 2-4 years experiece. Not saying a masters degree is not a good thing, but there is a real value to actual engineering experience.

If only at age 30 we could be a smart as we thought we were when were 18.

I am curious have you passed the PE yet, If not good luck.

 

[Macyndeth]

Show me another major in which you graduate college knowing essentially three major fields of engineering (structural, mechanical, and electrical) and have to do a thesis just to get an undergraduate degree.

I've spent a great deal of time on this website defending the AE degree from assaults by a particular *****. But this statement is absurd. AE majors may know the very basics of these three disciplines, but they certainly do not have the in depth specific knowledge that people with these degrees possess. I'm sure it's a rigorous discipline that has its own requirements and knowledge base, but it is not the same as earning all three degrees in EE, CE, and ME. You could use a little humility yourself IMO.

I don't care how "strick" the admission process is.

I never said it's the same as earning all three degrees, and it is much more than just basic knowledge of each topic. After 3 years studying each topic and taking advanced classes in all of them I think it's a very accurate statement that you graduate college knowing three major fields, maybe not as in depth as someone who focused solely on one topic (besides of course the topic you focus on), but still enough that you have more than just a basic understanding. Also keep in mind that after the first three years you have two years of classes solely in one of them, so you have a very in depth knowledge of a certain engineering and a very good understanding of two others.

Well, I don't know where you went to school, but I looked up the requirements for Cal Poly SLO and I assume they're typical.

http://www.catalog.calpoly.edu/2009pubcat/...ept/arce_bs.pdf

They require precisely one course in EE - basic lower division circuit theory.

By those standards you could say I know civil engineering because I took one lower division course in statics and dynamics as part of a breadth requirement. I'd say unless you have the equivalent of a minor in something you only have a basic knowledge of it. Even with a minor your knowledge is not much more than basic. I got within about a semester from a degree in biophysics but I don't claim to know physics anywhere near like a real physicist.

If your school was vastly different, let me know the name of it and I'll check it out.

That is actually completely different than the AE programs I've seen. That program deals a lot more with simply structures and architecture rather than all the building components that other AE programs focus on. Although I do think you're completely missing my point in that I'm not saying that I know as much as the electrical guys I work with, but I have done electrical system design before and I have more than just a basic understanding of the systems, but I would never say I'm an electrical engineer. On the other hand though I went the structural option and I know just as much as the civils I work with (for building design at least) since we all take the same building structures classes, and actually even more than some civil programs. None of the civils I work with ever took classes on connections or advanced seismic design or finite element analysis, and granted every college is different so I only know how my program stacks up to some of my co-workers programs so there could easily be civil programs out there that do have those classes.

I guess the big point here is that people really shouldn't talk about things they know nothing about. Unless you've been through the program you have no idea what's involved with it. It's very frustrating when people say that it's not real engineering when in fact I went through all the exact same building structures classes as a civil would have at my college. The difference between my degree and a civil degree at my college is instead of taking classes on transportation or water resources or any of the other civil disciplines, I took classes on electrical and mechanical engineering and construction management. I kind of feel that if they started calling it Building Engineering rather than Architectural engineering people would take it more seriously. Those silly architects making life difficult yet again!

Anyone who thinks that the Arch Eng degree doesn't compare to traditional engineering degrees is an uneducated moron who needs to do a little homework before they open their mouths. When I was at Penn State, the AEs used to disregard engineering majors like Civil or straight Mechanical as lesser degrees as the work load was so much simpler and straight forward. I agree also with the person who stated that a great many people who start AE end up in Civil or some other field because they could not maintain the grades or handle the work load. I had quite a few friends go that route. Not sure if all AE programs are like this, but Penn State is an excellent engineering school and the major has done me countless favors. The MD PE board even granted me a full year of work experience for the degree, so I got my PEness a whole year early.

Additionally, I would NOT agree that you essentially leave knowing three major fields, but that could be because of how Penn State structured their program (I did take QUITE a few more electrical courses than the one class someone spoke to above). There you take 2.5ish years of a broad spectrum of courses from the four major fields of building construction: mechanical, electrical, structural, and construction management. The next 2.5 ish years are mostly specific to one of those disciplines (yes it's a 5 year program - too much to cover in 4 years like most engineering majors) and you end up having to prepare a major thesis in the 5th year just to get the Bachelors Degree. However, as the major is designed to focus on the building industry, that assumes you will be looking for a job in that industry after college. My focus was mechanical, and I came out of college a good two years ahead of regular mechanical engineers trying to get work IN THIS PARTICULAR FIELD. ME's, EE'S, etc. with no architectural background need training following college to get them up to speed with all the specifics of this industry (I hope no one argues this point as it will make them sound idiotic), and coming out of the AE field also meant I was as proficient at CAD and Revit as most CAD techs in the industry. Most of the straight ME's we've hired have never even seen these programs before, or used a load analysis program, or even sized ductwork or piping, basic things that need to be taught while the company loses money in the training. And while you will not know everything about the other building fields, you will remember enough from your basic classes in the other fields to allow you to speak intelligently to engineers in those other disciplines. A straight ME entering the building industry probably wouldn't know an I-beam from his own ***, let alone the basics of stress/strain relationships of structural building elements, wind impacts, snow loading, etc.

I'm not bashing other engineering degrees, and I wouldn't expect to be able to take this AE degree and have it open any doors for me mechanically outside of the building industry. But as I said above, IN THE BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY, having a degree in AE is MUCH more valueable than a straight ME degree, EE degree, etc. I am moving up in my firm far faster than the few straight ME's that have been hired in the past few years, and I am getting compensated well (well above the salary average with only 3.5 years work experience). Any engineer who thinks the work wasn't put in to get an AE degree or that the dergee holds no merit is probably an engineer who is still sitting in a small cube making less than average wages. Know what you're talking about before you speak out; the same lack of understanding and bias is probably what's holding you back at your own job.

Also, as a last thought, learning to write basic english using complete sentences, correct sentence structure, accurate punctuation, correctly spelled words, and well thought out concepts will do wonders. As an engineer, if you are going to bash someone else's degree, at least write as though you have more than a 7th grade level of education.

 

[benbo]

As an engineer, if you are going to bash someone else's degree, at least write as though you have more than a 7th grade level of education.

I seriously hope you are addressing someone other than me with this diatribe. Again, I was defending your degree, but you really come off as extremely arrogant. If you are responding to someone else (like maybe someone who actually "bashed" your degree), you should quote that person, not me.

BTW, I make well over six figures. Not a fortune where I live, but I'm hardly on the lowly end of the spectrum paywise.

Also, as a last thought, learning to write basic english using complete sentences, correct sentence structure, accurate punctuation, correctly spelled words, and well thought out concepts will do wonders. As an engineer, if you are going to bash someone else's degree, at least write as though you have more than a 7th grade level of education.

Yeah. Right.

having a degree in AE is MUCH more valueable than a straight ME degree, EE degree, etc.

 

[Macyndeth]

As an engineer, if you are going to bash someone else's degree, at least write as though you have more than a 7th grade level of education.

I seriously hope you are addressing someone other than me with this diatribe. Again, I was defending your degree, but you really come off as extremely arrogant. If you are responding to someone else (like maybe someone who actually "bashed" your degree), you should quote that person, not me.

BTW, I make well over six figures. Not a fortune where I live, but I'm hardly on the lowly end of the spectrum paywise.

Also, as a last thought, learning to write basic english using complete sentences, correct sentence structure, accurate punctuation, correctly spelled words, and well thought out concepts will do wonders. As an engineer, if you are going to bash someone else's degree, at least write as though you have more than a 7th grade level of education.

Yeah. Right.

having a degree in AE is MUCH more valueable than a straight ME degree, EE degree, etc.

I was not aiming this at you, you just happened to be at the tail end of a topic that I thought started with:

Wow reading this post reminds me of ppl getting MD. Maybe it is time now NCEES should follow the same exam standard for medical doctors. With countless of exams within months during residence, not just two FE/PE exams. The passing score should be 98% or above. Not 55% for FE/PE. Is engineer all C or D student nowadays? The minimum educatation requirement should be master or Phd in real engineering degrees (civil, mech, chem, etc.). Not some BS majors like construction management, Eng Tech or Arch Eng. Thats why PE in the U.S is much less respected compare to Euro countries such as England. And I would never suspect my family doctor will guess his way to get the MD without studies. If you ever wonder why most PE with 10+ yrs of experience and only making $100k/yr or less. Instead of $250k/yr + for a rookie MD. Ask yourself why they will let u pass so easily without study, engineering experience, knowledge and traditional engineering education background.

I was trying to agree with you and a few others in the thread while bashing this person as I am sick of ignorant people treating the AE degree like it has no merit. I apologize if you thought this was directed at you as I now see that the above moron's thoughts were not actually part of this post. The arrogance was directed at the person who was insinuating that the work I've put in is somehow less than that of a more traditional engineer, as were the writing comments.

 

[benbo]

I was trying to agree with you and a few others in the thread while bashing this person as I am sick of ignorant people treating the AE degree like it has no merit. I apologize if you thought this was directed at you as I now see that the above moron's thoughts were not actually part of this post. The arrogance was directed at the person who was insinuating that the work I've put in is somehow less than that of a more traditional engineer, as were the writing comments.

Okay. That's actually what I thought. Sorry if I came off a little nasty myself, I was in "defensive" mode I guess. :16:

I agree, the AE degree looks very tough.