<p>
[quote]
There were a few big topics on the discipline-specific section of the FE exam which we did not cover (though we were good for general section).
[/quote]
This is a bit off-topic, but in this situation, you might not want to take the discipline-specific section of the FE exam. If you're good for the general section in the AM, then simply take the general section in the PM as well.</p>
<p>
[quote]
So where do you stand, sakky? This is an opinion thread, and it seems like all you're good for is debunking other people's opinions.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, no, I haven't debunked your opinion. Rather, I have debunked some of the rationale that you used to defend your opinion. Specifically, you stated that market forces would serve to impel professions to increase educational requirements, yet the evidence indicates otherwise. I am not aware of any market forces that caused the law profession or the medical profession in the US to boost its requirements. I am certainly not aware of any good rationale for why those same forces would serve to boost such requirements only in the US, but not other countries. </p>
<p>The bottom line is that if you still want to believe that engineering should not increase its educational requirements, that's fine. That's your opinion and everybody has a right to their own opinion. But if you then want to justify your opinion, you have to make sure that your justification holds water. I am not aware of any market forces that serve to enhance educational standards. If you are aware of some, please do tell. </p>
<p>As far as where I stand, like I said before, I haven't taken a stance. I personally haven't come to a decision about whether increasing engineering requirements would be good or not. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't necessarily believe that doctors or lawyers need the <em>extra</em> education. Why they decided to enhance requirements, I don't really know or care. I don't think the requirements should be arbitrarily changed. Give me a good reason - and no, professional societies having prestige-hungry wet-dreams is not a good reason - and then we can talk. I've not seen a single good reason for doing it in this thread. Perhaps you can refresh my memory, though?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, first off, I don't think the reasons necessarily have to be "good". They just have to be effective. For example, again, for whatever reason, good or not, medicine and law were able to enhance their educational requirements. It seems to me that you dislike that change and I infer from your posts that you probably wish that the US medical educational system was more like that in Europe (in which you can attend medical school right after high school with no need for any intervening undergrad education whatsoever). Hey, that's fine. But at the end of the day, somehow, whether for good reasons or not, the AMA was able to increase educational requirements for doctors.</p>
<p>
[quote]
This is a bit off-topic, but in this situation, you might not want to take the discipline-specific section of the FE exam. If you're good for the general section in the AM, then simply take the general section in the PM as well.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's exactly what I did, but I'm using the topics on the exam as a standard on what should be included in the curriculum.</p>
<p>My crystal ball is no better than anyone else's, but here's how I see the situation playing out over the next 10+ years:</p>
<p>(1) at least some US states -- probably not all -- will adopt the current NCEES model law, which calls for the MS degree (or BS + additional credits) as the educational minimum for PE licensure. Since civil engineers typically need to become licensed, the MS degree will become the de facto first professional degree for civil engineers in at least some states. Some engineers in other disciplines, like power or HVAC engineers, will be affected as well.</p>
<p>(2) In response to this change, ABET will broaden its accreditation policies. Traditionally, ABET has focused on accrediting BS programs -- they don't ordinarily accredit MS programs, except at graduate-only institutions. This will likely change, and the ABET-accredited MS degree will become commonplace. Same thing happened in architecture, where NAAB accredits both B.Arch. and M.Arch. programs.</p>
<p>(3) At least some schools will drop their BS programs in engineering in favor of accredited MS programs. The undergrad programs at such schools will become "pre-engineering", with less technical focus and more liberal arts electives. Some schools (Harvard, Dartmouth) already offer non-accredited engineering BA degrees as alternatives to the ABET BS. </p>
<p>Again, this would follow the pattern set by architecture. Many prestigious schools only offer "pre-architecture" at the undergrad level, with the M.Arch. offered as a professional degree in grad school.</p>
<p>(4) The professional BS degree option will not disappear, as other schools will continue to offer ABET BS programs to undergraduates. This option will be more common at less prestigious institutions; e.g. second-tier state schools, "polytechnic" schools, "A&M" schools, etc. Once again, look at architecture.</p>
<p>(5) Overall, the changes will be good for engineering. More people with broader backgrounds will be able to pursue engineering careers. For example, science and math majors will enroll in engineering grad schools in their 30s and 40s, just as older students commonly go to law or business school. And the narrower, but shorter, professional BS path will still be available for those who want it. There would be more options for prospective engineers, not fewer.</p>
<p>So if this professional degree thing goes into effect, would it make a difference if you got a MS in CivE versus a MEng in CivE?</p>
<p>No difference. Heck, if I read things correctly, you don't even need a master's technically. You just need 30 credits beyond the standard 120 credits for a bachelors. It would make sense to take these classes and count it towards a degree, but you don't have to necessarily.</p>
<p>
[quote]
So if this professional degree thing goes into effect, would it make a difference if you got a MS in CivE versus a MEng in CivE?
[/quote]
As with all engineering licensing issues, the details will depend on the specific policies adopted by state boards. These will undoubtedly vary from state to state, as they do today.</p>
<p>The exact title or discipline of your master's degree probably won't matter to most state boards. What will more likely matter is whether or not it is ABET accredited.</p>
<p>
[quote]
if I read things correctly, you don't even need a master's technically. You just need 30 credits beyond the standard 120 credits for a bachelors.
[/quote]
That's what NCEES is proposing. However, individual state boards will be free to enact their own modifications. For example, the Georgia state board has reportedly decided that if they enact the BS+30 requirements, they will only accept an MS degree to fulfill the +30 part.</p>
<p>There is now a bill in the Nebraska legislature that would legally implement BS+30 for engineering licensure. If it passes, then the BS will officially become obsolete as a professional degree for licensed engineers in that state. Info on Nebraska and Georgia is [url=<a href="http://www.ncees.org/licensure/licensure_exchange/le_2008_04.pdf%5Dhere%5B/url">http://www.ncees.org/licensure/licensure_exchange/le_2008_04.pdf]here[/url</a>].</p>