<p>I've met a few people who've done non-engineering bachelor's degrees and are now doing their master's degree in engineering, and it will only take them 2 years to get their M.Engs. Will they then be just as qualified as those who've done the 4-5 year bachelor of engineering programs? How does this work exactly? It seems like the bachelor's of engineering is much more difficult, but to an HR person, a 2 year program called "master's" will sound more impressive than a 4-5 year program that's only at the bachelor's level...what's the point of the doing a 4-5 year bachelor of engineering when you can call yourself a "master of engineering" after only 2 years?? (with any non-engineering bachelors)??</p>
<p>i’m sure its possible, especially with people who major in physics, astrophysics, chemistry, mathematics etc.</p>
<p>As Buddy mentioned, people who have BS degrees in fields like physics, math, or chemistry have already taken many of the same classes that engineers have taken, so completing a Masters degree in engineering in 2 years is certainly possible. However, humanities majors would need to take many, many prerequisite undergraduate courses before they could even begin their masters program, so it would take them far more than 2 years to get a masters in engineering.</p>
<p>My TA for Statics and Dynamics was pursuing a M.S. in Aerospace Engineering when his undergrad was Physics.</p>
<p>Well the reason I’m writing this is because in certain respects this doesn’t seem to add up; I know a guy who did his bachelors in urban planning and he will become a master of civil engineering after 2 years. However, I know people who will have obtained a bachelor’s degree in civil engineering after taking 4 or 5 years of engineering courses.</p>
<p>So, it seems we’ll have a situation where someone who has taken far fewer engineering courses can call himself a “master of engineering” whereas a person who has taken more than double the number of engineering courses to get his bachelor’s, will be below him on the hierarchy. (masters>bachelors). </p>
<p>Does anyone find this odd/unfair/illogical?</p>
<p>A BS Chemistry and a BS Chemical Engineering differ by about 40 hours. Add in the standard 30 hours for an MS ChE without thesis and you get a total of 70 hours. A student taking 15 hours / semester can finish that in 2 years (with summer courses). In my experience, it’s even easier than that since programs will allow the student to use one MS course to cover an MS and a BS course (e.g. make the MS Advanced Separations Principals count for both the MS Advanced Separations Principals and the BS Separations Principals).</p>
<p>What’s more troubling is when a BA Philosophy earns a PhD ME in just 7 years. That one I can’t figure out.</p>
<p>
The non-engineering bachelor’s + engineering master’s route will take at least six years of college. The engineering bachelor’s route can be done in only four. </p>
<p>Furthermore, this example involves civil engineering, where you need a state PE license as well as a degree. The fastest route to a PE license is typically with an ABET-accredited degree – which normally means a BS degree (not an MS). In most states, you could get licensed with a non-engineering BS plus an engineering MS, but without an ABET degree, additional years of work experience would be required. It’s also likely that a PE candidate without an engineering BS would take longer to study for and pass the licensing exams, particularly the FE, which addresses virtually all aspects of the undergraduate engineering curriculum.</p>
<p>So if you go the civil engineering BS route, you will probably both (1) get out of college as fast as possible, and (2) qualify for a professional license as fast as possible. If you go the non-engineering bachelor’s plus engineering MS route, your career will be delayed in both respects, probably by several years total. It’s not a particularly advantageous or popular approach.</p>
<p>^but what is the case for chemical engineering…would you hae problems getting a job after a masters with a BS in chemistry</p>
<p>I wouldn’t say that you would have a problem, but it would be a negative in an interview. If I interviewed a person like that, my perception would be that he (or she) was primarily interested in chemistry, but graduated, couldn’t find a job, and went back to school for an engineering degree. I would therefore question the person’s long-term interest in the field.</p>
<p>What I usually see, though, is someone with a BS Chemistry who is employed by a major manufacturer (e.g. Exxon) then placed in an engineering position. That person likes the field and realizes that to advance, he needs an engineering degree, so he goes to night school for an MS. In that case, the person already has engineering experience so if he interviewed with me several years after receiving the MS, I wouldn’t question the person’s dedication or credentials.</p>
<p>well I hope I dont get interviewed by you 
but seriously, my school doesnt have an engineering school, but one of those numerous 4+2 bachelors program which is a waste of time</p>
<p>What’s stopping you from transferring?</p>
<p>I am going to be a senior…so i cant transfer, and I actually like being a biochemistry major…no regrets, but I also want to do engineering</p>
<p>
The place I work for, you gotta have EIT within 3 years or they let you go.
I have heard numerous cases where people, who went from non-engineering/science undergrad degree to msce, having a difficult time to pass the EIT.
Some actually got let go for not meeting the deadline…</p>
<p>I can’t imagine anyone failing the FE exam. It’s about as basic as you can get.</p>
<p>Besides, 3 years gives you 7 shots at the exam.</p>
<p>
I only studied the night before, while having a little hangover and passed in one shot… some people that I knew are smarter than me took 3-4 times to pass.
It’s not that they are not smart, it’s just some people are not good at taking tests…</p>
<p>
The individual questions on the FE exam are not particularly difficult or tricky. However, the exam is extremely broad; it covers basic concepts throughout the fields of physics, chemistry, math, and computer science, plus your engineering discipline of choice, and even some biology and economics thrown in as well. </p>
<p>Overall, though, the FE exam is not too difficult – if you take it while all of the material is fresh in your mind. Those considering the FE exam are routinely advised to take it as soon as possible, either during senior year or immediately after graduation. </p>
<p>There is a good reason for this. The FE exam addreses important fundamentals, but these are not necessarily things that working engineers use on a day-to-day basis. If you’ve been out of college for several years, you may find that you’ve forgotten practically everything that you learned as an undergraduate about complex topics like thermodynamics, shear and moment diagrams, or Laplace transforms. </p>
<p>For this reason, older engineers who decide to become licensed often find the FE exam to be a bigger challenge than the PE exam. The same would likely be true of MS engineers who did not take a full ABET curriculum as undergraduates.</p>
<p>You also have to consider that in most years, you can miss 50+% of the questions and still pass with the curve. So even if you don’t remember computer science, and get every single question wrong, you can still pass the exam easily.</p>
<p>Regardless of whether or not it’s easy, the pass rate isn’t 100%. It ranged from 66% to 82% (depending on the module) in October 2008. </p>
<p>[Exam</a> Pass Rates- NCEES](<a href=“http://www.ncees.org/exams/pass_rates/]Exam”>http://www.ncees.org/exams/pass_rates/)</p>
<p>An 82% Pass rate is very generous. Think of all the people that take the exam with 0 prep, all the people that take the exam without an engineering degree, and all of the people that have engineering degrees but really shouldn’t. </p>
<p>A reasonable student putting in reasonable effort (at least visiting the website and looking at the formatting / sections) probably has a 90-95% probability of success. I can’t think of any tests that have that sort of pass rate.</p>
<p>
If you include everyone who takes the FE exam, then the pass rate is nowhere near 82%. It’s not even close.</p>
<p>The pass rate varies from year to year and by the different afternoon modules, but the “official” rate cited by NCEES is typically about 75%. For example, in [October</a> 2008](<a href=“http://www.ncees.org/exams/pass_rates/]October”>http://www.ncees.org/exams/pass_rates/), the “official” pass rates cited by NCEES ranged from 66 to 82%, with an average of 73.7% for all modules.</p>
<p>However, the “official” pass rates don’t reflect real-world conditions, for two reasons:</p>
<p>(1) The official pass rates only include first-time takers. In reality, a large percentage of the people who sit for any given FE exam are people who have already failed the exam one (or more) times. Statistically, the odds are that these people will fail again. </p>
<p>(2) The official pass rates only include examinees with ABET engineering degrees. As it says on the NCEES webpage: “FE pass rates below reflect results for examinees who attended EAC/ABET-accredited college/university engineering programs.” People without such degrees have significantly lower odds of passing.</p>
<p>NCEES doesn’t release the “raw” FE pass rates, but the California Engineering Board (which administers more than 10% of FE exams nationwide) [url=<a href=“http://www.pels.ca.gov/applicants/exam_statistics.shtml]does[/url”>http://www.pels.ca.gov/applicants/exam_statistics.shtml]does[/url</a>]. The California FE pass rates aren’t “adjusted” in the same way as the official NCEES rates. For the 5 most recent exams, the following “raw” FE pass rates were observed in California:</p>
<p>04/08: 48.25 %
10/08: 42.71 %
04/07: 50.44 %
10/06: 43.67 %
04/06: 46.71 %</p>
<p>So the typical “raw” FE exam pass rate in California – counting everybody sitting in the exam room, regardless of qualifications – is only about 45%. Typically, more people fail than pass.</p>