It’s hard if not impossible to “just take some of the …courses.” Engineering courses assume a foundation. There are no watered down versions of engineering courses like there are of Calculus and Physics. As a result, only engineers typically have the background to take engineering classes.
It looks like the originally linked article at https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2009/12/04/engineering-flexibility advocates making the first professional degree in engineering a graduate degree instead of the bachelor’s degree, using analogies to other fields like health professions.
However, moving the first professional degree higher in the education ladder reduces access to the profession, particularly among those from lower income/wealth families who have more difficulty affording the additional years of education needed to enter the profession.
Personally I get the point the author is trying to make and have a romantic attachment to the classic lecture format. My son has a very different, more peanut take. His thought is why pay university tuition, which depending on where you go can run more than $1000 per credit hour, for things you can teach yourself cheaply or even free.
The linked article was published almost eight years ago. It’s not apparent that any movement has been made in that direction.
If things ever do go that way, my guess is that it will be like architecture, and that students will have a choice. In other words, the traditional, professional 4-year BS would stay, but the more flexible, unaccredited BA + professional MS route would become a commonly accepted alternative.
Many of the most selective and prestigious universities prefer to offer professional degrees at the graduate level, rather than at the undergraduate level. In architecture, this means that many highly ranked schools (e.g. UCs, most Ivies) have dropped the professional BArch degree, and now only offer the MArch as a professional degree. Possibly the same thing could eventually happen in engineering. Of course, this wouldn’t prevent other schools from continuing to offer professional engineering degrees at the undergraduate level, just as other schools (e.g. the Cal Polys or RPI) continue to offer the BArch.
I finally read most of the linked article, and the author is way off base…in so many ways…but first with her starting thesis.
Engineering is more popular than ever, especially after the economic downturn in 2008/2009. In 2008-2009 (the year the article was written), 74,387 BS degrees in engineering were awarded (17.8% to women), in 2015-2016 that was up to 112,721 (20.8% to women).
I’m going to delete the rest of my response to the author’s horrible proposal on making a graduate degree a requirement for engineering, as it’s TLDR and off subject to the poster’s original question. Lets just say I’m happy no one is seriously considering her proposal.
As the others have stated, you can find several schools that are more flexible when it comes to switching majors, and in adding minors or even a dual degree (which at any school, will add time to graduation), so it’s worth your time to research these programs.
Good Luck!
Why would my computer autocorrect pragmatic to peanut? :-/
:))
" She is extremely interested in Environmental engineering, " - Although that may sound refined, it’s a rather broad statement once you start actually looking at programs… (I know this because I too originally wanted enviromental engineering 30+ years ago during my college search. Also I’ve learned more in recent years as both kids researched engineering programs.)
Tell us more, and we may be able to offer more guidance.