<p>
[quote]
CivETs certainly exist.
[/quote]
I always wonder why we would need CivET. That's just adding to the already-saturated civil engineering field.</p>
<p>Also, who cares if EET would like to be called engineers as well.
Since we call janitor "sanitary engineers", everyone started calling themselves as some kind of engineers.
The word "Engineer" has already lost its value anyway.</p>
<p>
[quote]
That's just adding to the already-saturated civil engineering field.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Rheidzan, the civ market isn't saturated. It may be saturated in smaller localized cases, but by and large, more civil engineers are retiring than are coming into the field, and the vast majority of civs have little to no difficulty finding jobs. If you or someone you know of is having difficulty finding a job in a given locale, they should widen their net a bit, because jobs are definitely out there.</p>
<p>et's are people who couldnt make it in engineering.
please, lets not kid ourselves and try to say that ets are better in any way than engineerings. that just isnt true.</p>
<p>4Truth, I'd say you have your answer on this page. Stigma, yes. Looked down upon, yes. At least by the persons frequenting this board. </p>
<p>ExplorerCY, that's like saying engineers, or as you so eloquently put it, engineerings, are just people who couldn't make it in phyics, math, med school, or some other fill in the blank field. I know, you didn't want to do med school or study abstract things like atomic physics. Not everyone wants to spend 30 years working on things like designing more efficient ways of making a fuel cell work, or designing cars or airplanes that might never be built either for the sake of design. Someone's gotta keep the planet running while you try to come up with something to improve it for the next generation, something in which you may or may not succeed, then make what you came up with work in the real world. I don't see why you'd begrudge that.</p>
<p>^^^
i'm not saying that et's dont have successful careers, but please don't put them on the same level as engineers.</p>
<p>Father05, I agree that there's probably a bit of a stigma against engineering technology majors, but I'm not sure that engineers do as little practical work as you think. The sort of work we do at our firm is pretty complex, and is pretty cutting-edge, but we definitely do hands-on design work here, and it gets built. We go out to the site, we get our hands dirty, we wear boots and hard hats. It's the same in other industries, too. I think that if you polled a group of average, practicing engineers, you'd find that they're all working on a product of one manner or another--one that's going to be designed today, and has as high a likelihood as anything of being actually produced tomorrow. (In my case, the thing I'm working on right now, a hospital, is actually under construction as I'm designing it… Nothing quite so motivating as driving by your construction site at 7 PM on a Saturday evening, enjoying your weekend, and noticing that they've got a full crew out working while you're on your way to see a movie!) So, we as engineers are definitely are keeping the 'real world' turning. There are a lot of research engineers out there who <em>are</em> working to build a better mousetrap for future generations, but most of us are turning out the specs for mousetraps that are going to production tomorrow. </p>
<p>I think our main concern for people who are considering engineering technology is that they not turn to it simply because they think they'll get a more hands-on experience as engineering technology majors, because I think the thing that we as practicing engineers see out here in industry is that there are plenty of exciting hands-on experiences to be had, but the best bet for getting your top choice is to go for a high level of academic rigor.</p>
<p>I'd say to go ahead and consider engineering technology, but if you're going to go for a technology degree, please make sure you're doing it for the right reasons. The most frustrating thing I can imagine is to end up underqualified for a host of jobs that sound interesting because you thought you were getting into something that would be the best of both worlds, while really, it's not what you thought it would be. Talk to engineering technologists, talk to <em>engineers</em> as well, scout out some jobs that sound interesting to you and ask people in those jobs how they got there. That's probably the surest way to get what you're intending to go for.</p>
<p>...and certainly don't take the Internet's word for it!</p>
<p>aibarr, i defer to your voice of reason. I agree with your points, and I know that engineers will always be more qualified than ETs, just like Drs are more qualifed than physician's assistants and lecturers are not necessarily as qualified as research professors, but they all can perform necessary functions at as high or in some cases even at a higher level than the "pros" they stand in for. </p>
<p>The worst professor I ever had taught a P Chem2 class. The guy was a genius and a heavy hitter in research, a hundred times or more the chemist I'll ever be, but he was the worst lecturer on the planet. I think he thought it was beneath him to teach any undergrad, and he took it out on us. We were his first undergrad class for some reason in like 10 years. We'd have been better off with a fresh PhD or an experienced MS lecturer that wanted to teach. That's my point. Is the MS lecturer more qualified than the research PhD? No, but he could very well be better at it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I always wonder why we would need CivET.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>My guesses: drafters, steel detailers, inspectors, etc.</p>
<p>I don't think anyone here is seriously arguing that xET's are not a viable option as a degree, or cannot get jobs. Both of those would be increadibly foolish positions to take. You just need to understand going in that you are not getting an xE degree. You will not be doing the same work. Think of it a bit like the difference between NCOs and officers in the military. They are both in charge of managing the grunts, but are still very different. There is nothing wrong with the NCOs, but to call them Officers would be foolish.</p>
<p>Anyway, just keep all that in mind. Good luck.</p>
<p>OK, I read or skimmed over some of the responses and thought I would add my 2 cents.</p>
<p>I'm a EET and worked in electronics field for 20+ years. One thing for sure is the EET will open doors to more hands-on type roles compared to a EE. The EET is a step above an electronic tech (or ET). Usually ETs have bench type troubleshooting jobs, or maintain electronic hardware or equipment. Not that thats a bad thing. As a EET, you'll have opportunites for more engineer type roles. One thing to consider is you may NOT have the opportunity to do electronic/electrical hardware design work. I think thats the main difference I've encountered over my career. My focus has mostly been in test, QA, mfg or other engineering support roles. I've done some s/w development work because I took some additional programming classes. I've also managed a team of engineers and techs. I do have some EET colleagues that are in h/w design, so its not impossible, but just not as common as with EE degree.</p>
<p>So my advice is if you really want to electronics/electrical hardware design work, or broaden your career opportunities, go for the EE degree. It will open up more doors. Also, you can easily advance your degree, i.e. masters in EE or Comp Sci, etc. FYI. My son is a rising HS senior and plans to study EE.</p>
<p>However, you can earn a decent living as a EET and have a rewarding career. Hope this helps someone. Please feel free to PM me if you have further questions.</p>
<p>jasper</p>
<p>
[quote]
One thing for sure is the EET will open doors to more hands-on type roles compared to a EE.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is the one thing I disagree with. It doesn't "open more doors" it's pretty much your only option starting out as an EET. An EE can do any job as well as an EET if not better and the EE already has the knowledge of designing new products where as the EET will probably have to receive those types of skills on the job.</p>
<p>I guarantee you if an EE applies for the same "hands on" job as an EET the EE will be seen as the better choice by degree (not taking other factors into play).</p>
<p>JoeJoe,
I've interviewed many new EE grads and I never met one who claimed to have experience "designing new products" in school (as you say). I agree you have design "projects" in school, but its all theory until you get a job. Also, its unlikely academia will purchase tools or licenses for various types of design tools used in the real world.<br>
jasper</p>
<p>To the OP: As a degreed engineer who also works with some ETs (I actually am sitting next one right now), believe me I have no axe to grind or hidden agenda. But, for your son's/daughter's sake please don't be fooled into thinking the two types of degrees are basically equivalent, either in terms of training or in the job market. They just aren't. Of course many ETs can work their way into careers that are "just as good" (whatever that means) as degreed engineers can have. But the key words are "work their way into". In many cases ETs will be limited in where they can get in the door, and in many cases they will need to start out in less desirable positions and then "prove" themselves.<br>
On the other side of the coin, I think some of the misconceptions displayed in this string about the work of degreed engineers is laughable. To hear them tell it you would think that the average engineer is chained to his desk all day solving twelfth order differential equations, has to be shaken out of his or her high-end conceptual stupor so he can go to the john, and doesn't know a wrench from a mallet. This picture just isn't true; and it's much easier for an engineer who is inclined towards the practical to learn that stuff on the job than it is to develop technical depth in an ET who is workiing on the shop floor- the degreed engineer just has more flexibility this way.
Finally, try on this logic. This string has some competing descriptions of what ET programs are like with respect to full-fledged engineering programs. If you are contemplating a situation where the two programs are very similar in quality and requirements, if you are going to make the effort in the first place, why not go for the engineering degree? it really doesn't make much sense to go for the ET degree on the basis it's just about as good as the engineering degree, does it? And, if an ET program is of poor quality, why bother at all?<br>
fathero5, you doubt your company is the exception in preferring ETs over engineers. Well, you shouldn't doubt it. Maybe the key is in what you say afterwards, i.e., that your company "utilizes and installs other peoples' equipment" and that the vast number of your employees are there to "make it work once it shows up on a truck". what you describe sounds like difficult work, which requires intelligence and talent, but by your own description it is a limited area of the entire field of engineering and technology. a degreed engineer has access to this kind of role, plus a lot more.</p>
<p>Wow, just had a long post vaporized, but I will try again.</p>
<p>Weldon, I was reall ytaking a Devil's advocate position. Outside of a quip from Ken285 and aibarr's postings, there has been very little discussion until jasper. Searching the ET threads finds they usually die in 4 or 5 posts. This is the longest and most productive I've seen. And I certainly don't think most engineers sit chained to a desk dreaming up new stuff all day. I do think that the average CC student on here is the best and most ambitous, and I do think that a much higher than average percentage on here desire to be desgining and building on the cutting edge. I just don't think that's where most engineering jobs are.</p>
<p>My company is a metals producer. There are 2 or 3 major producers of our equipment in the world, none on this continent. So when we order a system for $50-700 or 800 million dollars, we have lots of people working on it from designing it with the maker's engineers to installing and making it go after it gets here. Our latest project is replacing a system 60 years old. So how many engineers are working at the 3 companies that make this stuff, and how many are working downstream at the hundreds of worldwide metals producers, using it, making it go, and keeping it going? I'd guess it's 100 fold downstream at least. Take that to cars, washing machines, whatever. A team of 100 or 300 or whatever designs a car. The car is made in plants around the world and assembled somewhere else. For every guy designing the car, there are dozens more implementing it, making the systems that build it work. I just don't see our use of engineers, that is in a lot of jobs that could be ET jobs as unusual. It's just there aren't a lot of BSETs compared to BSEs, so obviously most of the jobs are going to be held by BSEs.</p>
<p>In our case, my DD is looking at EE. What may be her best chance to be able to go affordably only offers a few ET degrees though, EET being one of them. The curriculum looks good, the student:faculty ratio is good, and over half the EET profs are PhD EEs. They have 100% placement the past few years, put people in grad school for MSEE, and have no grad students gobbling up profs time when Sr Projects and research come. Their brochure does a nice job of selling it. We have certainly seen other schools where the department chair was a MSEE and the coursework was not as strong on the math/physics end. However even at a less rigorous EET program we discounted, the first year classes include:</p>
<p>Electical Circuits 1
EC Lab 1
ET Orientation
EC 2
EC Lab 2
Digital Electronics
DE Lab
Experimental Methods for ET</p>
<p>I am sure you understand why I am skeptical when another poster writes that 3rd year EETs are just turning on a light bulb at his school and excited to do so when this is the first year at a not so rigorous EET program. It sends up a red flag for everything else s/he has posted.</p>
<p>We're visiting the stronger EET program next month. We'll know better then where my D stands, but thanks to you weldon and jasper for chiming in with some real world experience.</p>
<p>Father05,</p>
<p>Just want to thank you for keeping this thread alive with excellent posts. Your input was very helpful. It is a shame that there is such a stigma attached to BSET. What the engineers don't realize though is that they are in danger of shooting themselves in the foot -- creating their own stigma. That of arrogance. </p>
<p>I think there is a place in the world for both engineers and technologists just as there is for Doctors and PAs. Accepting the understanding that the salary for an ET may always be a little under that of EE's potential (which my son does not mind. He would still be making quite a decent living... He doesn't need to make 100 grand), it seems to me that in these times of troubled economy, that could actually play in the favor of hiring an ET over an EE. I believe the tide may be turning and employers may be beginning to see the beauty of having ETs on board. They can get the job done but with a little less pay than Eddie Engineer requires.... Am I way off with that thought, or do you think there is some validity to it?</p>
<p>Perhaps the stigma is not coming from the job force but rather only from those engineers who feel threatened by them....?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Perhaps the stigma is not coming from the job force but rather only from those engineers who feel threatened by them....?
[/quote]
That logic doesn't make sense. See Weldon's post above... If engineers are threatened and have hidden agendas. We'd tell you all to go to ETs, saturate the market, and degrade the value of ETs.</p>
<p>
Finally, try on this logic. This string has some competing descriptions of what ET programs are like with respect to full-fledged engineering programs. If you are contemplating a situation where the two programs are very similar in quality and requirements, if you are going to make the effort in the first place, why not go for the engineering degree? it really doesn't make much sense to go for the ET degree on the basis it's just about as good as the engineering degree, does it?
</p>
<p>4Truth: I'm afraid you may be drawing some wrong conclusions here, to your own detriment. I think my own post, and those of some others here, regarding the merits of the different degrees and career paths attempt to do nothing more than give you what YOU asked for, i.e., an honest assessment of the situation. If you don't like the answers, you're hurting no one but yourself by attributing it all to "stigmatization" and feeling "threatened" (and, by the way, where did the "Eddie Engineer" stuff come from? Why the hostility? Are you interested in other people's advice and opinions, ornot?)
In point of fact, ET programs are good for many individuals, companies, and ultimately the economy. I was thinking about this way back when I was in engineering school (many moons ago), for the following reason: some (by no means all) of my fellow engineering students really had no inclination or talent for technology. They were there because they were good at math, and saw the degree as some sort of stepping stone for other things. Meanwhile, a lot of talented and committed "techies" (some of whom were my friends) were being denied an engineering education just because they weren't good enough math students, and this was wrong.
However, let's not twist our logic here. If you are motivated by technology, AND you can handle the math, you can benefit greatly by going for the engineering degree, and you will be a formidable professional. Hands-on talent is not a draw-back for an engineer, it is a significant advantage for his career prospects. Theoretical knowledge and hands-on ability are not mutually exclusive strengths, as you seem to want to continue to believe. But go ahead and think what you want about me, believe me my only intention was to help, you are welcome to listen or not</p>
<p>weldon, I wonder, and since you are out of school only months, maybe you're not comfortable answering, but how many engineers do you think that are out in the workforce for 3-5 years are doing what they dreamed of doing? Or are the still working their way to the top. You have stated that engineers are always going to better at X than ETs. But are engineers doing what they want, or are they doing ETs jobs? I guess that's my question. How many jobs being held by engineers could be done by ETs and have performance at the same level?</p>
<p>For many engineers, management winds up being the advancement path. Is an xE with a MBA that much better than a xET with an MBA? The guy who manages my chem lab wouldn't know what an XRF was if you dropped it in his office, but he's still in charge of them. Opinions, with some factual backup besides "everyone at my school said" - good, bad or ugly.</p>
<p>weldon said he was in school "many moons ago" not months. But anyways he's got the most down to earth responses I've heard so far. </p>
<p>To father: If all engineering jobs could be done by ET's then everyone would be doing ET as its clearly an easier option. Industries hire engineers for a reason. As far as I'm concerned an engineer can do anything an ET grad can do and more but definitely not the other way around.</p>
<p>An engineer with an MBA vs an ET with an MBA? Honesty that probably won't matter because both have had experience in the field and have good background knowledge. Once they get the MBA they are on equal grounds in a management position.</p>
<p>father05, I don't believe what I'm reading in your last post. Who said I'm out of achool "only months"??? I've been a practicing engineer for almost 25 YEARS. And I NEVER stated "that engineers are always going to better (sic) at X than ETs". And I also never even VAGUELY referred to anything "everyone at my school said". Don't put words in my mouth. What I've said is that in general ETs are more limited in where and how they can get in the door as compared to engineers. Engineers in general have more career options, including senior-level technologists (senior engineers, proncipal engineers, and chief engineering roles) and, of course, in hard-core design environments.<br>
Please let's have some perspective. Many engineers, as you've hinted, are not performing their dream jobs. They would either like to be involved in more cutting-edge technical stuff, OR follow a management or other leadership route. The problem of course is that by definition there are only so many "leadership" roles to go around in any organization, and the hard technical tasks mostly go to the more proven people. Where I work, an ET could in many cases (say half? I don't know) be as effective as a degreed engineer. But the point is, they don't get the chance because my company PREFERS TO HIRE ENGINEERS for these jobs. As I said in some previous string, most ETs we hire are limited to jobs like test engineer, manufacturing methods, production facilitator, or a quality control function.<br>
When you talk about an MBA and business leadership, you are really changing the discussion. Of course you can get an MBA with an ET degree and go over to the management side. You can also do that with a Psychology or English Lit or Basketweaving degree and skip the engineering altogether, since at this point you are following a diffferent career path based on your individual desires and initiative. "...he wouldn't know an XRF if you dropped it in his office, but he's still in charge of them..." so what's your point? Haven't you wandered a little far off the original question?
I find this discourse particularly frustrating because it is "4Truth" and you who have solicited others' opinions, when you clearly have already made up your minds on the issue and are most interested in defending your going-in position. . So, fine, enroll your kids in ET programs with my blessing. As I HAVE said (as opposed to what I NEVER said), and ET degree can be a very good choice for many people.</p>