<p>Then you don’t get the point. To solve the fundamental principals, you need tools like higher order calculus and differential equations. Even if you haven’t solved a fundamental problem in 30 years, having done it once to the point of understanding means that you know the limitations and assumptions inherent in the body of knowledge.</p>
<p>So using a derivative formula that you understand because 30 years ago you used a DE to solve a problem is implicitly using higher order math.</p>
<p>I don’t want to turn this into an argument but that really makes no sense. I mean all algebraic formulas are derived from Calculus but that doesn’t mean everyone who does algebra understands how to derive the formula. </p>
<p>But anyways, trying to get back on topic, my main point to the math is that if that is the main difference between ET and Engineering and that you also don’t use the higher math in the real world then ET isn’t half bad if you just want a bachelors and to enter the workforce. For Grad school obviously it will help because you’ll use it all the time.</p>
<p>You know basic arithmetic. You know that 2+2 = 4. However, do you know why? What makes 2+2=4, and how would mathematics fundamentally change in 2+2=5? Without set theory, you can’t know the answer.</p>
<p>That’s the difference between Eng Tech and Engineering. An ET is taught that 2+2=4, and then learns basic math based on that fact. If the ET is at work, and 2+2=5, they have no way of knowing what to do or how to react. They might not even know to recognize that there’s a problem.</p>
<p>On the other hand, an engineering major derives why 2+2=4, and learns all of the dependent formulas. Then, if 2+2=5, then engineer knows the the assumptions that went with the 2+2=4 approach and knows how to react, or can at least recognize that there’s a problem and figure it out.</p>
<p>It’s a bit vague, but you have to be when talking at an aggregate level.</p>
<p>I agree with G.P. Where I think the engineering education makes a big difference is evaluating computer output. An engineer can look at some numbers and think, “Huh, that looks a little odd!” He/she can also perform the correct hand calculations to verify that the computer results are right. We have an office policy to do that on every project. The engineer also needs to understand and verify that all of the computer programs assumptions are correct.</p>
<p>I have to add that we look at a lot of calculations for items such as steel connections. There are usually pages and pages and pages of very official-looking computer output. When we look closer at them, there are often some glaring problems and inconsistencies. It kind of scares us to see what is coming out of engineering offices!</p>
<p>aarons914, the fact that you don’t “get it” just underscores the difference between the two programs. It reminds me of architects who learn how to use steel design tables in school and then think they can challenge us on why we sized columns as large as we did! They’re not taking into account a lot of variables that need to be considered.</p>
<p>Nurses know a lot. They know how to administer drugs, they know what drugs should be administered for which diseases, they know how to care for and treat patients, and they don’t have to be as educated as doctors do. Why do we still go to doctors? What’s the fundamental difference between the two that puts doctors in charge of patient care? The answer is that doctors know and understand the theory behind diseases, behind how the body works. They have a solid basis of fundamentals, and so even the greenest med students are allowed to dictate patient care to the most battle-scarred nurses. They (should) listen to the nurses, and consider their experience in their decision-making process, but have the technical background to form a basis for their opinions, and so society ultimately trusts their opinion.</p>
<p>Same thing with the construction industry. I deal with contractors who have tenfold the experience that I do, but they defer to my judgment, even though I’m a 27-year-old kid who’s been out of school for three years. I listen to the contractors, and I hear why they think that something should be built a certain way, but ultimately it’s my call. And it’s my call because I have the theoretical background to be able to say why things are a certain way.</p>
<p>Wow, you guys are gangin’ up on a newbie…
Anyway, here’s my 2 cents:
Erhhh… because nurses can’t write up prescriptions?
A nurse practitioner’s job is more or less similar to a primary care physician, but why do we still go to a doctor? Because society thinks that your primary care doctor knows everything, although they are not necessarily needed for most of the regular diseases/diagnosis.</p>
<p>Why engineers and not engineering technicians? B/c society deems that engineers have higher standards (it’s all about engineer’s pride, IMHO). In my experience, an engineering technician is capable of doing a lot of things that our engineers do. </p>
<p>Oh and regarding that higher math, I’ve never encountered a project where I have to do a hand calc on complex math like you mentioned above (O/PDE, laplace, fourier etc etc. etc?.). I forgot them the minute I passed the class… So your point?</p>
<p>To recap: I guess if you want to go with ET route, by all means go ahead. Fever “higher-level math” classes doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re lesser than an engineer…</p>
<p>Nurse practitioners are allowed to write prescriptions, FYI. </p>
<p>It’s not engineers’ pride. If we had any pride, we wouldn’t be engineers! But really, if you think engineers are overtrained, then you must not be running into the same sorts of complex projects that I’m running into… I haven’t stopped learning, I haven’t stopped having to go back and review fundamentals and derivations of things, and I haven’t stopped feeling like I don’t know nearly enough yet…</p>
<p>Nurses are training in patent care, and treating symptoms. If a certain disease pops up frequently (e.g. the flu), nurses can often diagnose based on repetition. A nurse doesn’t necessarily understand most of the inner workings of the body, and is not trained to diagnose a rare disease or a disease that he/she hasn’t seen before.</p>
<p>We’re not “ganging up” on anyone, we’re just explaining the facts. Buildings and other structures (such as dams!) are complicated systems, and technicians just don’t have the skills and knowledge to be responsible for their design. Yes, they can perform certain calculations, but they can’t become licensed engineers who sign off on designs.</p>
<p>In some states Engineering Technicians can become licensed, but it usually takes 10 or more years (vs. 3-5 for engineers) and requires additional testing.</p>
<p>But I think ML is right. We’re not ganging up, we just want to make sure that the difference is known. God forbid an engineering technician doesn’t know his/her limitations and builds an unstable structure, resulting in fatalities (though the same can be said of an inexperienced engineer - that’s why we have the licensing system). </p>
<p>A nurse wouldn’t perform open heart surgery, and an engineering technician shouldn’t perform the structural integrity calculations on a plane.</p>
<p>A couple things, first I don’t feel ganged up on, I appreciate honest feedback. Also I see “Engineering Technician” coming up a lot and I think some people are confused. Im not talking about a 2 year technician program training someone to do CAD or other basic engineering functions, Im comparing a 4 year Bachelors degree in Engineering and Engineering Technology which are very similar other than Differential equations really.</p>
<p>Comparing a nurse/doctor to an Engineer/ET is hardly a fair comparison considering doctors go to school 4-5 times as long as nurses.</p>
<p>All I was ever really saying is the 2 degrees are very similar but Engineering gives you a more theoretical base and Technology is more hands on.</p>
<p>The thing about it is, as a structural engineer, I went to school for four years and learned all the theoretical stuff. Then I went to graduate school for two years, and learned two more years’ worth of theoretical stuff. Then I went out into the workforce and spent three there (getting paid, thankfully) in basically a practical-based internship. It’s now been nine years since I started college and I’m just <em>now</em> allowed to go for an engineering license, next October, when I will legally be allowed to design things. It’s not called a residency like it is in medical school, but that’s functionally what it is (aside from our having added perks like salary and benefits)-- I’m not even allowed to <em>call</em> myself an engineer yet. Even after I get my license, there’s pretty much no way that I’m going to get to design something, put my stamp on it, and send it out for at <em>least</em> three or four more years… A superior will be looking over my shoulder to make sure I’m not screwing things up. If I eventually want to design anything taller than three stories, I’ll then have to go for my SE license in addition to my PE license… That’s another set of testing, and another several years’ worth of qualifying experience.</p>
<p>So, I think it’s a pretty fair comparison after all, for many branches of engineering.</p>
<p>We’re also talking about a 4-year ET degreee.</p>
<p>And many nurses have just as much classroom education as a doctor, with just as much clinical experience. The difference is the type of education and experience that each group gets. </p>
<p>As someone that has worked with both engineers and technicians, I think it’s an absolutely fair comparison.</p>
<p>What’s the point of saying that BSEE is better than BSEET?</p>
<p>They are both Bachelor of Science. BSEE, I will admit, is more rigorous than BSEET. That doesn’t mean BSEET is a cake walk either. You still have to study caculus I and II, but no further than that. I am an engineer and I’ve never seen anything I work with require math higher than calc I. If you think BSEET is easy, then what do you say about Accounting, English, Economics, or Biology. Are those major even way easier? They are all just degrees and nothing more. Just because your major is harder, it doesn’t mean you have to right to talk down about other majors.</p>
<p>BSEET is not an engineer and BSEE is also not an engineer.</p>
<p>It is illegal to call yourself an engineer unless you have a PE license.</p>
<p>It is more true to consider everyone who does not have a PE license a technician, both BSEE and BSEET.</p>
<p>The only way to be an engineer is to pass the state engineering examination (FE and PE), which will qualify you to be a real engineer.</p>
<p>BSEET can take the engineering exam, same as BSEE. BSEET might have to get more years of experiences.</p>
<p>To compare Doctor and Nurse to BSEE and BSEET is pretty dumb.<br>
Can BSEET be engineer? Yes. (By engineer, I don’t mean job, I mean state licensed engineer)
Can a Nurse be a Doctor? No</p>
<p>But you know what? You don’t need engineering degree to be an engineer!</p>
<p>That’s not true in all states. Also, the NCEES Model Law is a step towards changing that, too-- the NCEES strongly disagrees with the states that allow engineering technology degree recipients to sit for the PE examinations.</p>
<p>So, the governing national engineering council disagrees with you.</p>
<p>Even if it’s not true in some state, it’s still true in most state.</p>
<p>Even if the governing national engineering council disagrees with me, most state’s government still agrees with me and it’s the state’s government that make the rule.</p>
<p>To tell you the truth, I don’t see the movement to have only engineer taking engineering exam going anywhere. I’ve been waiting for them to change it for years and I don’t think two years from now going to be any different.</p>
<p>If NCEES really does not want BSEET to take the engineering exam, why do they make it so easy that BSEET can pass it? If engineering degree people actually know more than engineering technology degree, how come engineering technology can pass such a rigorous test? Why don’t they make the test as hard as what engineering degree supposedly is?</p>
<p>This is why I hope that in the near future people would need a master’s to be able to sit in for the PE exam… so we could stop arguing BS?ET vs BS?E…</p>
<p>It’s not a burning issue for the state boards. In theory, yes, it is possible to become a PE without an ABET/EAC engineering degree in many states (perhaps most states). But in practice, only a small fraction of PEs lack engineering degrees. So it’s not something that the boards are particularly concerned about. </p>
<p>In California, for example, it’s theoretically possible for a humanities major or a high school dropout to qualify as a Professional Engineer. In practice, does this mean that English majors are rushing to take the Chemical PE exam? No. </p>
<p>
In practice, the FE and PE exams are not easy for ET graduates. First, relatively few ET grads even attempt to take these exams (even in states where this is legal). Second, the passing rate for ET grads is significantly lower than the passing rate for engineering grads. ET PEs certainly exist (I know one myself), but because of these two factors, they are not very common.</p>
<p>
Because it’s possible to learn about engineering (or anything else) outside of school. As another example, some states will allow candidates to qualify for the Bar Exam without ever attending law school; some people successfully become attorneys this way every year. Just not very many.</p>
NCEES is pushing state boards to adopt the MS degree as the new educational standard for the PE by the year 2020. At least some states are likely to do so. </p>
<p>But even then, it would probably still be possible for someone with a non-engineering BS degree to qualify for the PE license, as long as they had an ABET-accredited engineering MS degree to go with it. ABET has not traditionally accredited MS degrees, but they will probably do so in the future.</p>
<p>When you said, “the passing rate for ET grads is significantly lower than the passing rate for engineering grads.” Where did you get that information from? Please give me the link to the ET passing rate.</p>
<p>There are many people before me that want to know the passing rate for ET but never find one, I think you are the first person I ever know who found it. Please post the link.</p>
<p>I have BSEET and about 80-90% of what’s on FE exam were taught in my BSEET degree. All I did was refreshing what I learned in college and I passed the exam. I think it isn’t that hard. It’s all straight forward.</p>
<p>And about MS for engineering exam, I guess instead of that, why not make the test harder? It would be faster and much more effective. I am saying this, because I got into a university with MSEE program that is ABET accredited for the undergraduate engineering degrees, and all I did was to take a couple of undergraduate engineering courses.</p>
<p>If all i did was to take 2 more courses to get into MSEE program with my BSEET, how much difference would it make to have MS degree taking FE and PE?
(To be fair, I had to do a lot of convincing before they have me taking only 2 courses)</p>
So your point?</p>
But really, if you think engineers are overtrained, then you must not be running into the same sorts of complex projects that I’m running into… I haven’t stopped learning, I haven’t stopped having to go back and review fundamentals and derivations of things, and I haven’t stopped feeling like I don’t know nearly enough yet…</p>