<p>There is a proposal floating around to require an engineer earn a bachelors degree plus a masters degree, or equivalent non-degree work, in order to be qualified to get a Professional Engineering license.</p>
<p>The NCEES and NSPE feel that this would make the profession more enticing to prospective engineers. They also feel the cost of a masters degree ($30,000 to $60,000) is reasonable.</p>
<p>My question is - do you like the idea of having to have a masters degree to get licensed as an engineer? Does it make the profession appear more prestigious? Is it likely to encourage you to get an engineering degree?</p>
<p>This is an interesting thought. I still think that this won’t change the way engineering is viewed in society. The thing to remember about engineering, in my opinion, is that no matter how strict the requirements become for PE licensure, there will always be a large number of people that call themselves engineers who really aren’t. To be considered a doctor, one must go to med school. To become a lawyer, one must go to law school and pass the bar. However, anyone who works in the technology sector can refer to themselves as an engineer i.e. technicians, technologists, etc… I know many people that do this and essentially, it degrades the profession. The word engineer is used way to loosley in my opinion. </p>
<p>I just think it is very misleading for someone to call themselves an engineer when they do not have an engineering degree. I’m not trying to bash anyone here because there is a need for technicians and the like but my point is that medicine and law don’t have to deal with this. Until the engineering field makes more of a distinction between true engineers and non-engineers, the way the profession is viewed from the outsiders will not change.</p>
<p>^You are incorrect. In some states you do not have to go to nor finish law school to be a lawyer (just pass a bar exam). In others you do not have to pass a bar exam, merely graduate from law school.
In addition, in many states you do in fact need to be licensed to legally call yourself an engineer.
How come you aren’t worried about people who have no license and call themselves a chemist or call themselves a physicist or call themselves an astronomer?
All of the above are professionals in my opinion.</p>
<p>I like the analogy. However, the day engineers start getting paid like doctors and lawyers is the day requiring grad school or “engineers school” would be appropriate.</p>
<p>I don’t know of any people that call themselves physicists without a physics degree. Maybe some do but I don’t know of any. My point is that I know several people with assiciates degrees in engineering technology that call themselves engineers. I think that out of all the professions out there, the title engineer is used inaccurately the most. Of course those professions you mentioned are professional jobs but the difference is that the titles physicist or chemist aren’t used so loosely, in my opinion. </p>
<p>Also gstein, not all lawyers out earn engineers.</p>
<p>Let’s try to keep the discussion on track (whether or not a masters degree should be required for professional licensure) rather than debate who should have the title of engineer.</p>
<p>Real-world engineering experience, post undergrad, is more valuable than a masters degree. For what it is worth, I got my PE about 5 years after graduating, and I loved the experience of hitting the books to prepare for the PE exam. The experience I obtained in the real-world, put the exam prep in perspective. FYI – In my company a PhD is a meaningful differentiation vs. an undergrad, provided you are in a technical career role. A masters just gets you a slightly higher starting salary vs. an undergrad.</p>
<p>It really isn’t any different than getting a CPA license if they do this, and accountants haven’t been hurt any. I guess I don’t really see the problem with it, but I don’t think it will solve anything either.</p>
<p>If they are going to require an advanced degree, they ought to tone down on the time requirements or something.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>The number of engineering student getting their bachelors have been increasing, while the number of engineering jobs hasn’t been increasing proportionally. This is driving down salaries. If, say, a masters in engineering is equivalent to professional school (law or medicine), and salaries are on higher, this would still attract the best and the brightest.</p></li>
<li><p>Passing the PE is not that hard. In CA you just need two years of experience to be eligible. In CA civil PE has more tests (seismic and survey) in comparison to other states, and I still think it was a joke.</p></li>
<li><p>On top of that, I’d like to see that the requirements for taking the PE is to have ABET bachelors and masters. Why? Because I don’t wanna see friggin chinese and indian students who come here for a masters degree, and all of a sudden they become eligible. Call me a protectionist, but I don’t care. And yes, this means ABET would have to accredit graduate programs.</p></li>
<li><p>If people are concerned about titles, this ought to change people’s perspective. When one calls oneself an engineer, people could ask where he went for his masters.</p></li>
<li><p>In CA people at asce younger member forum are already talking about this.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>I have been told that the FE is harder than PE. I looked at the curriculum for the FE and there is material that isn’t even covered for EE people.</p>
<p>Making it a PE requirement to get a masters is absolutely ridiculous. I hear all the time that you don’t learn “real engineering” until you get out into the field and actually do work on real projects. </p>
<p>Rheidzan, you say there’s too many engineering graduates for the jobs available. That may be true, but then that should just mean that only the better students from the better programs will get jobs. We’ve had 4 years of high school to prove we should be able to go to a decent engineering program, followed by 4 years of engineering at uni to prove we actually know about the fundamentals of engineering. More school would just be a waste of time for the more qualified bachelor’s students who don’t want to spend any more money.</p>
Sigh… OK, I give up.
Since there are too many students who think they know more than people in the industry, starting from now, rheidzan, PE is gonna start agreeing to ALL boys with ZERO industry experience.
You know what, they should go further than that. Make associates degree as the minimum requirements.</p>
<p>I have about six years of industry experience. What Aggie10 said (hands on engineering experience generally is more important than academic knowledge) is spot on in my industry. While getting a bachelors degree is required to get the job, it is the experience gained in industry that really matters.</p>
<p>My feeling is the same as Aggie10. Extra requirements to get a PE license is something that engineering consultants love because it limits competition and gives them a reason to raise rates. Outside of the consulting world, I fear that it will greatly reduce the number of Professional Engineers. In my industry, probably only 1% of engineers have chosen to seek professiona licensure, and many of these people haven’t chosen to obtain a masters degree in engineering. </p>
<p>I think the NCEES is barking up the wrong tree on this one. And I am saying that as a P.E. who is also in the middle of a masters degree program.</p>