<p>The undergrad petro engineering program at the school I want to go to (university of houston) is not abet accredited yet. Is this bad? Can I still get my PE? Do petro engineers need to become PEs?</p>
<p>The real question that you need to be asking here is why are they not abet accredited? You could also contact them and ask if they are in the process of being accredited. I read the other day that my state (SC) will let you become a PE if your school recieves accreditation within 4 years of your graduation.</p>
<p>As a petroleum engineer, you may have to be registered if you ever work for a consulting company. I dont think you would have to be registered for working for one of the oil companies, however, I am not sure of this. Since you have no idea of what the future holds, I think it would be a bad idea because no ABET = no PE. And this could possibly limit your future career.</p>
<p>It’s a new program, which is why it’s not accredited. They need to graduate students before they can seek accreditation, which the department chair claims they will do.</p>
<p>In Texas, you can get your PE without an ABET accredited degree, but it takes 11 years (instead of 4 for those with an accredited PE). You can contact the Texas Board of Professional Engineers and ask about their policy for programs that obtain accreditation after you graduate (as mentioned above for SC) and contact the department to ask when they expect to receive accreditation. </p>
<p>That department at UH is basically an offspring from the ChE department, which is already accredited, meaning that the faculty are familiar with the process and know what it takes. I wouldn’t be too worried about them not receiving the accreditation after they’ve requested an audit.</p>
<p>If it’s a new program, I say go for it. Odds are it will be accredited soon (if other programs there are accredited, and if they claim to be seeking accreditation).</p>
<p>But it is something you want.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have never encountered an oil industry who was PE certified. Granted, I’m sure there have to be some. I just think they are rare. </p>
<p>As for how limiting the lack of accreditation would be, I would point out that Stanford has the #2 PetEng (now called the Energy Resources Engineering) program in the country, despite the fact that the program is unaccredited. </p>
<p>[Top</a> Petroleum Engineering Schools in USA | Good University Ranking Guide](<a href=“http://whichuniversitybest.blogspot.com/2008/11/top-petroleum-engineering-schools-in.html]Top”>Top Petroleum Engineering Schools in USA | Good University Ranking Guide)</p>
<p>
I have, but they were involved in the environmental compliance and land redevelopment aspects of the business, which means that their engineering work and conclusions were subject to external review by outside parties. Most PetEs work in the “core” business of oil exploration and production, which means that their engineering work is only used internally, and is therefore not subject to licensure laws. I would agree that licensed PetEs are in the minority. </p>
<p>
That’s a bit misleading. The rating in question is for Stanford’s graduate programs in Petroleum Engineering (which still bear the traditional title of “Petroleum Engineering” degrees, even though they are now in the “Energy Resources Engineering” Dept.). ABET normally accredits BS programs; no one expects Stanford’s MS and PhD degrees in Petroleum Engineering to be ABET accredited. </p>
<p>Stanford no longer offers a BS degree in “Petroleum Engineering”. They do offer a non-ABET BS degree in “Earth Resources Engineering”, but this program (as the name suggests) has a broader focus than petroleum; it also covers geothermal and other renewable energy sources, as well as environmental issues like greenhouse gases and global warming. It appears that it would be possible to earn a Stanford BS degree in “Earth Resources Engineering” with little study of traditional “Petroleum Engineering” . It wouldn’t surprise me if most current ERE undergraduates are in fact inclined in that direction.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t see why that’s misleading, as many (probably most) engineering ratings have to do with graduate programs. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uh, it’s actually ‘Energy Resources Engineering’, not ‘Earth Resources Engineering’. I also freely acknowledged this was the case in my previous post, hence, I hardly see why that’s misleading. The ERE degree is not accredited.</p>
<p>[B.S</a>. Undergraduate Program : Department of Energy Resources Engineering, Stanford University](<a href=“Energy Science & Engineering”>Energy Science & Engineering)</p>
<p>The salient point is that I highly doubt that Stanford’s ERE students, or past PetE graduates, are going to have problems getting jobs in the oil industry just because their degrees are unaccredited. No oil company is going to say: “You graduated with an ERE degree from Stanford and you displayed top knowledge of the industry in your interview, but because you don’t actually have an ABET accredited degree, we can’t hire you. Instead we’re going to hire the guy with the accredited PetE degree from Marietta College.” Never happen. </p>
<p>[Marietta</a> College: Petroleum Engineering](<a href=“http://www.marietta.edu/~petr/]Marietta”>http://www.marietta.edu/~petr/)</p>
<p>After all, you said it yourself, the vast majority of PetE’s never work on projects that require external review and project regulation signoffs. That renders accreditation superfluous, in answer to the OP’s questions.</p>
<p>
But an oil company might say: “You graduated with an ERE degree from Stanford, but your studies focused on geothermal reservoir engineering. You must be bright, but your educational background doesn’t fit our present needs, because we aren’t involved in geothermal projects. We are looking for traditional petroleum engineers at this time.”</p>
<p>Granted, the absence of ABET accreditation would not, in itself, be the specific issue in this case. But the absence of ABET accreditation would be symptomatic of the specific issue: a Stanford ERE degree might not have anything to do with petroleum engineering. ABET PetE accreditation eliminates this concern. </p>
<p>But even more to the point: it’s obviously true that Stanford has more institutional cachet than, say, Marietta, regardless of accreditation. But is this fact really relevant to the OP? The OP is not considering Stanford – the OP is considering the University of Houston, a USN&WR Tier 4 University which realistically does not have the same kind of name brand. </p>
<p>If an oil industry recruiter was weighing an ABET-accredited PetE degree from Marietta vs. an unaccredited PetE degree from U.Houston, then, yes, the ABET “seal of approval” might well make a difference. Neither school has a Stanford-like reputation, but the fact that the Marietta program has successfully completed a rigorous review from the Society of Petroleum Engineers (the relevant member society of ABET in this case) could easily provide a defensible basis for preferring their degrees (especially if the recruiter and/or his company are involved in SPE).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Frankly, I rather doubt that really would happen, when you consider the fact that oil companies hire plenty of people for petroleum engineering jobs who don’t actually have petroleum engineering degrees. I certainly seem to recall a bevy of ME’s, EE’s, CivE’s, heck, even some people who didn’t even have engineering degrees at all, but instead majored in geology or geophysics (or, in one case, chemistry). </p>
<p>What matters is not so much the specific degree that you have, but the knowledge you have, or may potentially develop. CC seems to be far too hung up on specific degrees, yet the fact is, you are not confined to the engineering discipline in which you majored. What is important is that you obtain a flexible education that allows you to quickly develop whatever skills happen to be necessary on the job. In fact, it is imperative that you do, for the technology changes all the time, and the specific tools you may have learned in school are probably going to be obsolete by the time you hit the job market. What really matters is that you have a strong body of general technical knowledge and intuition. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I believe the OP asked whether PetE’s need to become PE’s. The answer is clearly ‘no’, and the success of Stanford is evidence of that. Like I said, and you have confirmed, only a small minority of PetE’s will ever become licensed, nor do most ever need to do so.</p>
<p>The bottom line is this. ABET accreditation is a relatively minor concern within the petroleum industry. What is far more relevant are concerns about the general reputation of the school as a whole as well as the connections it has with the industry. It is better to attend a highly prestigious and well-connected school that is unaccredited than an unprestigious and poorly connected school that is accredited.</p>
<p>Sakky and I will have to agree to disagree on this. I can see two situations where ABET accreditation might be useful to a PetE.</p>
<p>First, in some cases, it can make your degree look better. Sakky correctly notes that a school’s reputation and connections may be even more important, as at Stanford – but the OP inquired about a brand new program at a low-ranked school, where the reputation and connections are presumably far less strong. If your degree is from a brand-new program that has not yet established a reputation in the industry, then the fact that it has ABET accreditation will assure anyone that it has credibility. </p>
<p>Second, ABET accreditation helps with the PE license, which is admittedly not necessary for a PetE, but which does provide additional career options. No, the PE is not required for the core PetE task of petroleum exploration and production. But petroleum is (along with mining) about the most volatile engineering field, famous for boom and bust cycles, with frantic hiring at some times and mass layoffs at others. The secondary tasks of environmental cleanup and real estate redevelopment, which oil companies are also involved in, are much more stable, or at least follow different cycles. And even though these tasks are “secondary” to oil companies, keep in mind that these are among the largest companies in the world, and that even their “secondary” tasks involve a lot of money and work. </p>
<p>I know PetE PEs for large oil companies that avoided layoffs during oil “busts,” by transferring out of exploration and production, and into environmental and real estate. The PE license is a plus if you want that versatility, and the ABET degree is a plus if you need a PE.</p>
<p>I’ve never disputed that ABET accreditation has some value. Surely it does. </p>
<p>I’m simply saying that the value is quite marginal when it comes to petroleum engineers. I strongly suspect that most oil company managers with hiring power wouldn’t even know which PetE programs are actually accredited. You will be hired (or not) based on criteria that are, frankly, far more arbitrary than whether your school is accredited.</p>
<p>Thank you all for your help. It’s has been very informative to read the debates on this issue and has help me come to a decision. The University of Houston might not be the most prestigious school outside of Houston but it is highly connected with the commerce of Houston itself. Many of the oil companies in Houston back the start-up of the PetE program at UH financially so I’m guessing they are interested in hiring graduates from that program. As long as I’m not going to be held back by not being able to get my PE in the industry I think it will be ok.</p>
<p>The facts of not obtaining ABET certification is you are not able to sign well licsenses… This would be a huge setback in your career and you will be very upset with yourself… Anyine can work for a Petroleum Engineering firm or oil company helping with well plans but if you cant write the “tickets” ie well liscenses really your potential earning will deff. be restricted…</p>