<p>
</p>
<p>So just to recap from a series of discussion above, ABET accreditation is pretty important unless you get your degree from a top 20 schools such as MIT, Caltech, Stanford, etc…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Which means we can now agree on at least one point: people in Texas are perfectly free to call themselves engineers if they work for oil companies, regardless of whatever kind of engineering degree they may have or lack thereof. Whatever may have happened in the past has no relevance to people deciding what sort of degree they should get today. And, yes, that includes sanitation engineers at Exxon.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And, as Corbett pointed out, the relevant phrase is: </p>
<p>therefore, it appeared this firm was unlawfully offering and performing engineering services for the pubic of Texas.</p>
<p>I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: the vast majority of engineering companies are not offering engineering services to the public, which is a legalistic way of defining state-regulated civil/structural engineering and design services that require PE signoffs. The vast majority of firms offer fall under statute 1001.057, which I repost:</p>
<p>§ 1001.057. Employee of Private Corporation or Business Entity
(a) This chapter shall not be construed to apply to the activities of a private corporation or other business entity, or the activities of the full-time employees or other personnel under the direct supervision and control of the business entity, on or in connection with:
<a href=“1”>b</a> reasonable modifications to existing buildings, facilities, or other fixtures to real property not accessible to the general public and which are owned, leased, or otherwise occupied by the entity; or
(2) activities related only to the research, development, design, fabrication, production, assembly, integration, or service of products manufactured by the entity.**</p>
<p>No PE needs to sign off on the Texas Instruments microchip in my cellphone, the Exxon gasoline in my car, or the Dell laptop I use. All of these products fall under the industrial exemption of products that are, or could be, sold via interstate commerce and are hence not subject to state regulations. </p>
<p>Incidentally, the industrial exemption is quite the misnomer for the term exemption implies a general rule to which only a circumscribed minority are not subject. In fact, the vast majority of engineers work for ‘exempt’ firms. Hence, it is the exemption that is the general rule rather than the anomaly.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>See above: it is actually those jobs for which accreditation is required that are the exception rather the rule. A bizarre but correct interpretation is: all engineers need accreditation except for most of them. </p>
<p>Specifically, ABET accreditation is necessary only if you plan to work in state-regulated engineering industries such as building construction so the relevant question is therefore whether you are actually going to work in such an industry. To be fair, many people don’t know exatly what industry they will end up working in, and so accreditation may be pursued as part of a risk-averse strategy. However, I think it’s safe to say that some engineers are more likely than others to ever need that accreditation. If you’re a bioengineer, you’re probably not going to be designing buildings. </p>
<p>I also agree that becoming a PE, which is easier to obtain with an ABET accredited degree, may be valuable as a resume fillip regardless of whether you actually work in an industry in which it is required. However, you have to carefully consider just how important that really is. Other than the important exception of civil engineers, the vast majority of engineering students from ABET accredited programs - whether from MIT or some 4th tier school - will never become PE’s. For example, EECS is by far the largest major at MIT, and I know many of the students and alumni. I have yet to meet a single one who actually cares about attaining PE status. {To be sure, if you search hard enough, you’ll probably find a few, but certainly the vast majority of them are uninterested.}</p>
<p>Isn’t that because most of those EECS people go into the finance industry. ;)</p>
<p>Anyway, dunno about at MIT, but one of the highest salaries I’ve seen for EE students with a BS out here has been at the Departments of Water & Power. It actually pays better and offers more benefits than Broadcom, one of the more sought after employers here. Only catch is you have to pass your FE/EIT in two years and PE within a few years of that. Not sure if you’d be able to fit in the timeline they give without an ABET accredited degree.</p>
<p>Being a materials engineer I could care less about becoming a PE, but I still remember ABET being very important to my department in undergrad. According to one of my professors back there some of the materials science professional organizations (MRS, TMS, etc) have been pushing for some sort of standardized test to certify a materials engineer’s abilities.</p>
<p>
For LA DWP (aka Department of Wealth & Power), EE, ME, CivE and EnvE make the same amount of salary… So if you’re a CivE or EnvE working at LADWP, you probably hit the jackpot…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>One question: do they pay as much as do consulting or banking?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well… <em>now</em> they do.</p>
<p>(End joke. That was a very topical joke right there. No response is required detailing how consulting and banking still pay more than being an engineer, merely a chuckle is requested.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>An entry level engineer at DWP can break 100k/yr with OT. Not to mention their 100% tuition reimbursement program on any study and any grad school seems to be very attractive. The only other companies that I know of in the area that pays 100% are boeing and northrop-grm. Add those above to the stable-ness of gov’t job… I can’t put a price tag on it.</p>
<p>Out of curiosity and for comparison purposes, how much does consulting or banking pay anyway?</p>
<p>Probably around the same to start, maybe a bit less (for consulting), or more for higher-end finance jobs such as venture capital or hedge funds.</p>
<p>However, what is attractive in consulting and banking is not so much starting pay, but rather later pay, which tends to ramp up quickly, especially in banking. But, most important of all, those jobs open doors to other career pathways. Most engineering jobs - of which the DWP jobs would almost certainly be included - provide a pathway only to other engineering jobs, or in some cases, project management jobs. Consulting allows you to try on a myriad of roles in multiple industries so you can decide on what you really like to do.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not in Los Angeles, or the rest of California for that matter…</p>
<p>[It’s</a> Official: City Budget, 1,200 Layoffs Approved | NBC Los Angeles](<a href=“Local – NBC Los Angeles”>It’s Official: City Budget, 1,200 Layoffs Approved – NBC Los Angeles)</p>
<p>[Schwarzenegger</a> plans layoffs, deep cuts, new fees - On Deadline - USATODAY.com](<a href=“http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2009/05/schwarzenegger-plans-layoffs-deep-cuts-new-fees.html]Schwarzenegger”>http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2009/05/schwarzenegger-plans-layoffs-deep-cuts-new-fees.html)</p>
<p>What I’ve been hearing is since the DWP is a revenue generating branch of the government they aren’t afraid of how the city’s doing.</p>
<p>Anyway, my comparison was for engineers that were interested in doing engineering work. One of my step-brothers does IB type of work, and I can’t see myself enjoying that job no matter how much it pays.</p>
<p>
We’re talking about dwp, not state of CA or any other city. We’re talking about the DWP, department of wealth and power.
There are 2 types of department at city of LA:
- proprietary, revenue generating (lax, dwp, port of la) and
- non-proprietary, tax-based, council-run (eg dept of public works, etc)…
What dwp does every time they’re in a pinch is raising utility bill. It’s socialism at its finest, in disguise of capitalism… <em>sarcasm</em>…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, frankly, most IB junior analysts don’t really enjoy the work either. I liken it to being a medical resident: a painful process that you endure for a few years in order to open doors to something better. Heck, it isn’t dissimilar to the weeder year of an engineering curriculum: immediate pain for hoped-for future gain.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Step brother that’s 15 years older than me. 
He’s made enough where he’s planning on retiring in a couple of years (well, he had been, dunno how they’re doing at the moment).</p>
In my point of view ABET /PE/FE not important , i will speak about my experience , u will see in market much engineer from qualified university but when you invite these people to vacancy interview u will feel that people in the engineering theory information are weak comparing to other people was diploma engineering and after some times they get bachelor degree by distance learning university and meanwhile all of the on line university not accredited ,but these people u feel they are experienced in design and technical work ,and in his time and in the presence of internet and you tube self learning became more practical what u need you will find any information so it is not a judgment that if person university not accredited or holding ABET he is not engineer also learning from life experience during work are big university ,experience and the information and the practical work certifies engineer .
This thread is almost 8 years old. Let it remain dead. Also, ABET is important in most fields.
That’s such a long sentence that he probably started writing it 8 years ago.
I guess no one is going to hire Stanford grads since 6 of their 9 engineering programs are non ABET accredited. ABET was initially conceived as a MINIMUM standard for engineering programs as decided between academia and industry. However top schools don’t need to be held back by ABET.
You clearly don’t understand the meaning of “minimum” or the ABET accreditation process.
If this is still being argued, it needs a new thread.