Engineering Becoming an engineer with no degree?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TyPie
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Degree Engineer
AI Thread Summary
Companies are generally hesitant to hire engineers without degrees, as they prefer candidates with formal qualifications and documented experience. While some states may allow individuals to take the Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) exam without a degree, passing it does not guarantee employment, especially in competitive fields like process engineering. Employers often require proof of expertise through work experience or certifications, making it difficult for self-taught individuals to break into the field. The discussion highlights the challenges of getting past HR and the perception that without formal education, candidates may be viewed as unqualified. Ultimately, pursuing an engineering degree may be the most viable path for those seeking to enter the profession.
TyPie
Messages
27
Reaction score
0
So, I don't have a degree, but I was curious if companies would hire me as a process engineer.

I understand calculus, diff. Eq, probability theory, statistics, and PDEs. I love thermodynamics, microbiology, immunology, as well as chemistry (above organic).

I guess the problem for me is getting past the HR. They usually just think I'm lying on my resume. Is it possible to just get the FE exam passed in any state without working as a tech for several years?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I retired from a federal nuclear engineering technician position with the title shift test engineer and without a degree. You probably will not be hired as an engineer now-a-days without the CV-resume to support it. Companies are too risk averse to give an unknown the responsibility of engineer.

As I understand it the PE cannot be taken without a significant EIT and I may have been in the last cohort of EIT technicians.

I reviewed graduate engineers' resumes and downgraded for the least hint of exaggeration or prevarication.
 
Doug Huffman said:
I retired from a federal nuclear engineering technician position with the title shift test engineer and without a degree. You probably will not be hired as an engineer now-a-days without the CV-resume to support it. Companies are too risk averse to give an unknown the responsibility of engineer.

As I understand it the PE cannot be taken without a significant EIT and I may have been in the last cohort of EIT technicians.

I reviewed graduate engineers' resumes and downgraded for the least hint of exaggeration or prevarication.
Thanks for your reply Doug. I don't really know what qualifies as an EIT. From what I've heard, it's like working as a technician under an engineer. I've seen degree or equivalent, but I don't understand how to prove the equivalent part. I just wish there was a test to prove that you can do the math and science.
 
TyPie said:
So, I don't have a degree, but I was curious if companies would hire me as a process engineer.

I understand calculus, diff. Eq, probability theory, statistics, and PDEs. I love thermodynamics, microbiology, immunology, as well as chemistry (above organic).

I guess the problem for me is getting past the HR. They usually just think I'm lying on my resume. Is it possible to just get the FE exam passed in any state without working as a tech for several years?

Put yourself in the shoes of an employer. How is he/she supposed to know of your expertise/skill/knowledge? Simply based on what you say without any formal evidence to back it up? And why would he/she pass up on other more qualified, well-documented engineers and choose you instead?

Would you let me perform surgery on you if I tell you that I don't have a medical degree, but I've understood how to perform a surgery really, really, really well?

Zz.
 
I apologize that I misunderstood your "FE" reference as a typographic error for "PE". The FE is new to me. The FE seems to require a degree still.

Here is the web page of the National Council of Engineering Examiners http://ncees.org/
 
Process engineers don't often need a PE. At my job nobody cares about it at all.

I think it is unlikely you would get considered. At my job we turn down candidates with a BS in engineering for process engineering regularly and usually hire people with a masters and/or work experience. People with a BS or equivalent can get hired as a technician, but again work experience is key.
I've seen degree or equivalent, but I don't understand how to prove the equivalent part. I just wish there was a test to prove that you can do the math and science.

Work experience is usually how you show the equivalent part. If you had a previous job as an process engineer or did similar stuff then you can make a case that you are equivalent. That you "can do" the math and science (whatever that means) is not what they are looking for when they say "equivalent".
 
I would probably let you perform surgery on me, if I thought that I needed
ZapperZ said:
Put yourself in the shoes of an employer. How is he/she supposed to know of your expertise/skill/knowledge? Simply based on what you say without any formal evidence to back it up? And why would he/she pass up on other more qualified, well-documented engineers and choose you instead?

Would you let me perform surgery on you if I tell you that I don't have a medical degree, but I've understood how to perform a surgery really, really, really well?

Zz.
I would honestly probably let you perform surgery on me, if you really believed in yourself, and I believed in you too. I have even performed surgery on my pets.

People see it as a big risk, but I have offered to pay for the flights to meet up for a real interview, asked them for a test created by the scientists/engineers to prove that I know what I'm talking about, but they just say something about it being too expensive or time consuming to make a test.
 
TyPie said:
I would probably let you perform surgery on me, if I thought that I needed

I would honestly probably let you perform surgery on me, if you really believed in yourself, and I believed in you too. I have even performed surgery on my pets.

Wow! Really!? Many telemarketers would love to speak to you! And oh, btw, your computer is infected!

People see it as a big risk, but I have offered to pay for the flights to meet up for a real interview, asked them for a test created by the scientists/engineers to prove that I know what I'm talking about, but they just say something about it being too expensive or time consuming to make a test.

You are forgetting that for each job opening, there is a large number of applicants. Why would they waste time on putting the effort on verifying your capabilities when there is already a huge pool of qualified candidates already?

Zz.
 
ModusPwnd said:
Process engineers don't often need a PE. At my job nobody cares about it at all.

I think it is unlikely you would get considered. At my job we turn down candidates with a BS in engineering for process engineering regularly and usually hire people with a masters and/or work experience. People with a BS or equivalent can get hired as a technician, but again work experience is key.

Work experience is usually how you show the equivalent part. If you had a previous job as an process engineer or did similar stuff then you can make a case that you are equivalent. That you "can do" the math and science (whatever that means) is not what they are looking for when they say "equivalent".
That's what bothers me. People
ZapperZ said:
Wow! Really!? Many telemarketers would love to speak to you!
You are forgetting that for each job opening, there is a large number of applicants. Why would they waste time on putting the effort on verifying your capabilities when there is already a huge pool of qualified candidates already?

Zz.
I know this one guy who got a degree in wildlife management. He lied on his linkedin profile and makes 200k a year as a ME. He ended up hiring his friends from baseball to work the same position. Some of them weren't even 20. They were thought to be geniuses, because they're working an engineering position that paid so well. In reality, none of them could do trig, and the management guy failed algebra twice.
 
  • #10
Doug Huffman said:
I apologize that I misunderstood your "FE" reference as a typographic error for "PE". The FE is new to me. The FE seems to require a degree still.

Here is the web page of the National Council of Engineering Examiners http://ncees.org/
In some states you don't need a degree for the FE, and some schools require you to pass the FE to graduate.
 
  • #11
To the OP:

As others have stated before, how would an employer know of your professed knowledge, skills or expertise without either a degree or work experience to match?
If you want to work as a process engineer, why not simply pursue an engineering degree?

Which leads me to my next question to you -- what is your current educational background and work experience?
 
  • #12
StatGuy2000 said:
To the OP:

As others have stated before, how would an employer know of your professed knowledge, skills or expertise without either a degree or work experience to match?
If you want to work as a process engineer, why not simply pursue an engineering degree?

Which leads me to my next question to you -- what is your current educational background and work experience?
When I was 14, I started working full time on the family farm. I would usually take school books with me to read while farming. I still do that. I just think it's ridiculous that the only way for people to believe that you've learned anything is through school.

So many people are stuck on the belief that you only learn things in school. To prove that you learned things in school, you take tests. How do you take all of the tests at once is what I'm wondering.
 
  • #13
TyPie said:
When I was 14, I started working full time on the family farm. I would usually take school books with me to read while farming. I still do that. I just think it's ridiculous that the only way for people to believe that you've learned anything is through school.

So many people are stuck on the belief that you only learn things in school. To prove that you learned things in school, you take tests. How do you take all of the tests at once is what I'm wondering.

Just because you have read a book, it doesn't mean that you have understood it or have acquired useful information. I can give you a classical mechanics text, and I can bet you that even if you have read the book, you will still not be able to build me a a safe bridge.

There are ways to prove one's skill and knowledge. Tests and certifications are one, a verified work experience is another. Why would anyone hire you when other candidates can provide clearer proof of their expertise? This is the one question that you have neglected to address. You are not applying in a vacuum, and it is naive to think that you are not in competition with others. You are not the only rodeo in town!

Zz.
 
  • #14
TyPie said:
When I was 14, I started working full time on the family farm. I would usually take school books with me to read while farming.
Do you have no formal education? Not even a high school diploma? May I ask how old you are? I would think what you are describing would be pretty rare these days. It's a perfect description of my grandfather's educational background, but if he were alive today, he'd be 100.
I just think it's ridiculous that the only way for people to believe that you've learned anything is through school.

So many people are stuck on the belief that you only learn things in school.
You're still totally missing the point. People may or may not believe you in the abstract, but in order to hire you, what matters is what you can prove. I think it is great that you've done a lot of self-study. I really do. But, sorry, if you sent me your resume, it would go straight into the trash.
To prove that you learned things in school, you take tests. How do you take all of the tests at once is what I'm wondering.
You should be able to find yourself an FE practice test to take. Try it. It'll give you an idea of where you stand. But I don't think it is possible in any state in the US to become a PE anymore without a degree.
 
  • #15
russ_watters said:
You should be able to find yourself an FE practice test to take. Try it. It'll give you an idea of where you stand. But I don't think it is possible in any state in the US to become a PE anymore without a degree.
Have to agree with Russ, in the old days you could start at the bottom and work your way up. Too many graduates nowadays filling those slots. Things have also become more complex. I'm not saying it's not impossible to find a small engineering firm, start at some menial job and over the years, work you way up, but it's a long road, and no guarantees. Along that road, it would behoove you to take college courses in Engineering.
 
  • #16
ZapperZ said:
Just because you have read a book, it doesn't mean that you have understood it or have acquired useful information. I can give you a classical mechanics text, and I can bet you that even if you have read the book, you will still not be able to build me a a safe bridge.

There are ways to prove one's skill and knowledge. Tests and certifications are one, a verified work experience is another. Why would anyone hire you when other candidates can provide clearer proof of their expertise? This is the one question that you have neglected to address. You are not applying in a vacuum, and it is naive to think that you are not in competition with others. You are not the only rodeo in town!

Zz.
I am just wanting to take the tests and certifications. The only certifications I've seen would be for one of those oracle programmers really. That's comp sci though. All the other certifications require several years experience working in management, as an engineer in training, or a degree.

A lot of people say it doesn't matter what degree you have, you can get a job as anything with just a degree. This would probably make you cringe if the only thing the person knew was what their degree was focused on.
Evo said:
Have to agree with Russ, in the old days you could start at the bottom and work your way up. Too many graduates nowadays filling those slots. Things have also become more complex. I'm not saying it's not impossible to find a small engineering firm, start at some menial job and over the years, work you way up, but it's a long road, and no guarantees. Along that road, it would behoove you to take college courses in Engineering.
I understand that. I agree, it seems way easier to be set with a higher salary with a degree. Do most engineers end up set with their salary for the most part? Like the CEO takes all of the money, where as the engineer usually stays at about 70-80k? Why does the FE and PE require a degree? Is it to raise tuition costs?
 
  • #17
russ_watters said:
Do you have no formal education? Not even a high school diploma? May I ask how old you are? I would think what you are describing would be pretty rare these days. It's a perfect description of my grandfather's educational background, but if he were alive today, he'd be 100.

You're still totally missing the point. People may or may not believe you in the abstract, but in order to hire you, what matters is what you can prove. I think it is great that you've done a lot of self-study. I really do. But, sorry, if you sent me your resume, it would go straight into the trash.

You should be able to find yourself an FE practice test to take. Try it. It'll give you an idea of where you stand. But I don't think it is possible in any state in the US to become a PE anymore without a degree.
I've got an FE practice exam book. It seems really remedial tbh. I guess would you prefer some one with a 34 on the ACT, but no HS diploma, or a 12 with a HS diploma?
 
  • #18
Evo said:
Have to agree with Russ, in the old days you could start at the bottom and work your way up. Too many graduates nowadays filling those slots. Things have also become more complex. I'm not saying it's not impossible to find a small engineering firm, start at some menial job and over the years, work you way up, but it's a long road, and no guarantees. Along that road, it would behoove you to take college courses in Engineering.
Just for clarity, when I said "possible", I meant "legal". You're required by law to have a degree to get a PE in almost all if not all states. My first boss was a non-degreed PE and there were only a limited number of states in which he was allowed to practice, and be grandfathered-in..

Yes, engineering used to be more of a trade, but it became formalized. It still retains a bit of the "trade" aspect in that to get a PE you need experience - you can't just take the exam cold (unlike, say, the bar exam).
 
  • #19
TyPie said:
I've got an FE practice exam book. It seems really remedial tbh.
"Seems" means you've just looked it over and not tried to actually take it. Try sitting down and actually taking the practice exam, time limit and all. See how you do.
I guess would you prefer some one with a 34 on the ACT, but no HS diploma, or a 12 with a HS diploma?
No, I would only accept people who graduated (or were about to graduate) with mechanical engineering degrees. Nobody in the professional world looks at ACT scores or high school diplomas/grades because the college degree supercedes them.
 
  • #20
Yeah, my dad was an EE and 50 years ago, he had to get a degree. He worked full time raising a family and went to school at night, legally blind to boot, completely blind in one eye and only able to see through a pinpoint in the other. (from being hit in the face with shrapnel during WWII).
 
  • #21
russ_watters said:
"Seems" means you've just looked it over and not tried to actually take it. Try sitting down and actually taking the practice exam, time limit and all. See how you do.

No, I would only accept people who graduated (or were about to graduate) with mechanical engineering degrees. Nobody in the professional world looks at ACT scores or high school diplomas/grades because the college degree supercedes them.
I was trying to make a comparison between the FE and a degree. I have taken the practice exam with the timer and breaks even. I just feel like they've made it too easy. The thing that bothers me is that more than 10% of the people fail the FE, but yet they have an engineering degree. Wouldn't some one who's passed the FE possibly be of greater value than the person who hasn't?
 
  • #22
TyPie said:
I was trying to make a comparison between the FE and a degree. I have taken the practice exam with the timer and breaks even. I just feel like they've made it too easy.
So you got a very high score? It isn't an easy exam, so that speaks well for what you have been able to teach yourself.
The thing that bothers me is that more than 10% of the people fail the FE, but yet they have an engineering degree. Wouldn't some one who's passed the FE possibly be of greater value than the person who hasn't?
Sure -- and someone who has both the FE and a degree is worth more still. Perhaps there are still states that will let you take the FE without a degree (even if you can't become an EIT after) and at least then you'd have something that proves to people you have some skill.
 
  • #23
Evo said:
Yeah, my dad was an EE and 50 years ago, he had to get a degree. He worked full time raising a family and went to school at night, legally blind to boot, completely blind in one eye and only able to see through a pinpoint in the other. (from being hit in the face with shrapnel during WWII).
My grandfather sounds like he was similar. My grandmother got into college when she was 14. She's traveled the world, and is known for killing people with her kindness. My grandfather was stuck on a ship the entire time. Supposedly it was torpedoed, and they had to swim to shore. He would never talk about it, but one of the things he was proud of was that he brought math and real estate books with him on the boat. When he got back to america after the war was over, he married my grandmother and started his own real estate and insurance company. He ended up making millions, but then there was a conartist that conned the city, and ran away with millions of dollars to south america. They ended up practically starving themselves to try to keep everyone covered.
 
  • #24
russ_watters said:
So you got a very high score? It isn't an easy exam, so that speaks well for what you have been able to teach yourself.

Sure -- and someone who has both the FE and a degree is worth more still. Perhaps there are still states that will let you take the FE without a degree (even if you can't become an EIT after) and at least then you'd have something that proves to people you have some skill.
That's all that I was wondering! Thanks!
 
  • #25
TyPie said:
That's all that I was wondering! Thanks!
There are other options as well. If you know AutoCAD or some other drafting software, you can become a draftsman/designer or other type of technician without a degree. You can work yourself up into a position where you are an engineer in all but name, which is still pretty good -- it is possible to make six figures as a designer.
 
  • #26
russ_watters said:
There are other options as well. If you know AutoCAD or some other drafting software, you can become a draftsman/designer or other type of technician without a degree. You can work yourself up into a position where you are an engineer in all but name, which is still pretty good -- it is possible to make six figures as a designer.
I don't know much about drafting tbh. I really love the thought of extracting things though. That's probably my favorite part of physics. Like I love looking at fluid flow, thermo, geometry, and microbiology.
 
  • #27
I sympathize with you TyPie. I have a very bad attitude about what passes for a university degree versus what it should be. I even wrote to the Maryland Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation several years ago when this issue was being considered, telling them that as a licensed professional engineer, I do not see what value comes from insisting on a degree. In my personal experience, working with both formally and informally educated PE certificate holders, any differences I noticed were actually in favor of the ones without a formal education.

There were ways that, if you worked with a licensed engineer for a certain number of years, that eventually, you could qualify to sit for the principles and practices (P&P/the actual exam for the PE certification) exam due to basic apprenticeship without even needing to take the Fundamentals of Engineering (FE/Engineer in Training) test. No longer.

I have known far too many fools who somehow managed to get a degree. If the degree had any real value, such people would not be able to earn one. And yet, they do.

If it makes you feel any better, note that while I did round-out my learning while studying in college, I already knew most of what they "taught" me from my own personal interests in ham radio, electrical work, and other studies I did on the side. The problem is proving it to someone who doesn't know you or trust you. I knew I needed that fancy certificate. Yes, it was signed by people I had never met who proclaimed that I knew what I already knew. And for some silly reason, we as a society tend to believe in the value of the paper rather than the performance of the individual.

This has been a rant of mine for as long as I've been in my engineering career. Nothing much has changed. We continue to perpetuate and to reinforce such ideas because it is documentation candy for bureaucracies. And as we all know, you must feed the bureaucracies or they will make a meal of you. There is no avoiding it. You have to play their game or find another place to live where their influence is limited.
 
  • #28
JakeBrodskyPE said:
I sympathize with you TyPie. I have a very bad attitude about what passes for a university degree versus what it should be. I even wrote to the Maryland Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation several years ago when this issue was being considered, telling them that as a licensed professional engineer, I do not see what value comes from insisting on a degree. In my personal experience, working with both formally and informally educated PE certificate holders, any differences I noticed were actually in favor of the ones without a formal education.

There were ways that, if you worked with a licensed engineer for a certain number of years, that eventually, you could qualify to sit for the principles and practices (P&P/the actual exam for the PE certification) exam due to basic apprenticeship without even needing to take the Fundamentals of Engineering (FE/Engineer in Training) test. No longer.

I have known far too many fools who somehow managed to get a degree. If the degree had any real value, such people would not be able to earn one. And yet, they do.

If it makes you feel any better, note that while I did round-out my learning while studying in college, I already knew most of what they "taught" me from my own personal interests in ham radio, electrical work, and other studies I did on the side. The problem is proving it to someone who doesn't know you or trust you. I knew I needed that fancy certificate. Yes, it was signed by people I had never met who proclaimed that I knew what I already knew. And for some silly reason, we as a society tend to believe in the value of the paper rather than the performance of the individual.

This has been a rant of mine for as long as I've been in my engineering career. Nothing much has changed. We continue to perpetuate and to reinforce such ideas because it is documentation candy for bureaucracies. And as we all know, you must feed the bureaucracies or they will make a meal of you. There is no avoiding it. You have to play their game or find another place to live where their influence is limited.
It seems like the entire education system is messed up. To me, it seems like it would be better for me to lie on a resume, after some of the things I've seen. Isn't it illegal to call yourself an engineer without have passing the PE or something like that? I was wondering why some schools promise a 6 week engineering degree.​
 
  • #29
Same story.

Basically my game plan is: get a job
use money i earn at said job to pay for an accelerated course
 
  • #30
TyPie said:
I know this one guy who got a degree in wildlife management. He lied on his linkedin profile and makes 200k a year as a ME. He ended up hiring his friends from baseball to work the same position. Some of them weren't even 20. They were thought to be geniuses, because they're working an engineering position that paid so well. In reality, none of them could do trig, and the management guy failed algebra twice.

I can't be the only one that did a double take reading this.
 
  • #31
TyPie said:
It seems like the entire education system is messed up. To me, it seems like it would be better for me to lie on a resume, after some of the things I've seen. Isn't it illegal to call yourself an engineer without have passing the PE or something like that? I was wondering why some schools promise a 6 week engineering degree.​

You can be an engineer without a PE certificate in the US. However, if you consult or have a name of the firm with the term "Engineering" in it, you'd better have at least one PE on staff to review and take responsibility for the plans you are proposing.

I was an engineer for many years before I bothered to get the PE certificate.

As for the educational system, it does what it is intended to do. People have many mistaken notions of what that intention really is. In practical fields such as engineering it is intended to expose the student to the theory in the vague hope that they'll figure out what to do with it. However, engineering is mostly a hands-on sort of work. Those who do not have a practical exposure to the methods used for prototyping or fabrication are a danger to anyone who reads their plans. If you think that all you need is school before you actually practice real engineering you are gravely mistaken.

The school is mostly so that a human resources bureaucrat who doesn't know a damned thing about engineering can sort out appropriate candidates for the job. As such, the degree does its job by opening doors. Nevertheless, the educational system is not an indicator of common sense or knowledge. It merely shows that you are capable of learning about theoretical abstractions.
 
  • #32
Many, years ago (> 40) , I knew of engineers that did not have engineering degree. In those days they probably had inside connections and they certainly did not go through HR. I believe those days are gone forever. Even some engineers with degrees have some difficulty getting jobs these days.
 
  • #33
JakeBrodskyPE said:
You can be an engineer without a PE certificate in the US. However, if you consult or have a name of the firm with the term "Engineering" in it, you'd better have at least one PE on staff to review and take responsibility for the plans you are proposing.

I was an engineer for many years before I bothered to get the PE certificate.

As for the educational system, it does what it is intended to do. People have many mistaken notions of what that intention really is. In practical fields such as engineering it is intended to expose the student to the theory in the vague hope that they'll figure out what to do with it. However, engineering is mostly a hands-on sort of work. Those who do not have a practical exposure to the methods used for prototyping or fabrication are a danger to anyone who reads their plans. If you think that all you need is school before you actually practice real engineering you are gravely mistaken.

The school is mostly so that a human resources bureaucrat who doesn't know a damned thing about engineering can sort out appropriate candidates for the job. As such, the degree does its job by opening doors. Nevertheless, the educational system is not an indicator of common sense or knowledge. It merely shows that you are capable of learning about theoretical abstractions.

Engineering programs that I'm familiar with in Canada often include strong component of lab work which presumably incorporates a lot of the practical exposure to the methods for prototyping and fabrication you speak of. Furthermore, there are schools such as the University of Waterloo which require its engineering students to participate in co-op work placements, whose very purpose is providing practical work experience of exactly the kind you feel every engineering graduate will require, on top of meeting part of the practical experience requirements mandated by the different provincial regulatory bodies before someone can be certified as a P.Eng. (the Canadian equivalent of the PE, which is required to work as a certified engineer in Canada).
 
  • #34
StatGuy2000 said:
Engineering programs that I'm familiar with in Canada often include strong component of lab work which presumably incorporates a lot of the practical exposure to the methods for prototyping and fabrication you speak of. Furthermore, there are schools such as the University of Waterloo which require its engineering students to participate in co-op work placements, whose very purpose is providing practical work experience of exactly the kind you feel every engineering graduate will require, on top of meeting part of the practical experience requirements mandated by the different provincial regulatory bodies before someone can be certified as a P.Eng. (the Canadian equivalent of the PE, which is required to work as a certified engineer in Canada).

...and that's also the case in most Engineering schools in the US for at least the last 30 years.

The problem is that no matter how hard we try, we can't seem to manage to bring the real world into the classroom. The decisions, the technologies already in use, the failure modes, and the cost considerations are all a factor that I've never seen any school combine into one project. Not one of the senior design prototypes in my electrical engineering class would have been suitable for much of any practical use. Between a lack of resources, experienced teachers, and a highly compressed time schedule, there simply isn't enough opportunity to bring the real world into the classroom.

It takes years to bring a fresh graduate up to speed where they can be trusted with even a small project. They have to make their mistakes, and show that they learn from them. They have to learn how to work on teams. They have to learn how office politics play into projects. I often wonder how many people leave the field because they thought they could live the life of a hermit, drawing designs in a cubicle. The real world is not like that at all.
 
  • #35
JakeBrodskyPE said:
The problem is that no matter how hard we try, we can't seem to manage to bring the real world into the classroom. The decisions, the technologies already in use, the failure modes, and the cost considerations are all a factor that I've never seen any school combine into one project. Not one of the senior design prototypes in my electrical engineering class would have been suitable for much of any practical use. Between a lack of resources, experienced teachers, and a highly compressed time schedule, there simply isn't enough opportunity to bring the real world into the classroom.

It takes years to bring a fresh graduate up to speed where they can be trusted with even a small project. They have to make their mistakes, and show that they learn from them. They have to learn how to work on teams. They have to learn how office politics play into projects. I often wonder how many people leave the field because they thought they could live the life of a hermit, drawing designs in a cubicle. The real world is not like that at all.

I find your line of reasoning ironic, since you've basically said playing with amateur radio equipment is better than getting a degree (yes I'm partially straw manning you, but the point stands). Because you haven't seen something doesn't mean it doesn't exist; I've worked on and seen several senior design projects that brought the real world very much into the classroom. I had to deal with a lack of resources, lack of funds, and a lack of experienced teachers while working as a team member for an amateur radio satellite (variant of a cube-sat) that brought together bits of pieces of most sub areas of EE while in a compressed time schedule. The thing was completed by another team that did a great job and it will be launched to collect data from LEO and beamed to a ground station this year or next year, seems practical to me. I've seen quite a few undergrads that meet all of your criteria for being put in charge of small projects. Things are very different from when someone your age was an undergrad.
 
  • #36
Yawn. Kids these days. :rolleyes: Yes, the technology has changed, but the practicalities and bureaucracies have not.

When I first got into ham radio, a half dozen guys who were interested would gather together in basements and garages to build ham radio satellites. One of those creations is still functioning today, decades after it was first launched (OSCAR 7). The technical challenge of building to a clean sheet of paper is interesting and instructive. However, it is trivial, especially when dealing with something that is basically a one-of creation. More to the point, they didn't have professors telling them how it should be built. They just did it using the technical papers published from the earliest spacecraft experience, their own educated guesses, and practical know-how.

I had many mentors in my ham radio experience. Most hams these days are happy just to know how to assemble a station. I went beyond that. I had experience working in a two-way radio repair shop. I had help designing microwave radios, spread spectrum systems (long before the IEEE 802.11 standards), packet radio, and so on. I did this in 1980 and 1981 as a junior and a senior in high school. I built a crystal phase-locked 10.250 GHz transceiver. I had an early packet radio system built around the W0RLI Terminal Node Controller. I studied electronic warfare systems in my summer internship at Naval Research Lab. I studied and constructed experiments in audio compandering, narrow band integration of slow CW signals, early micro-processor systems, and many other things. By the time I got to college, I'd already seen and done many times more than most people would ever get in their entire college experience.

Yes, some of the finer points of semiconductor physics were interesting. The Fluid dynamics class was interesting too. However, the math was mostly stuff I'd already seen in another form. The signals class would have been much more interesting if the instructor were worth anything. Thankfully I had a lot of practical intuition from my earlier experience to throw at that class that got me through it.

However, today, when designing half a dozen chemical feed systems for a large water treatment plant that must be reliable, economical, intrinsically safe, secure from cyber attack, coordinated with concurrent projects, integrated into existing control systems, and built on existing infrastructure --that's a completely different issue. In many ways it is far more difficult than putting a satellite in space.

By the way, that's a small project. Don't get me started on what larger ones are like. The technical part is often the easiest and simplest aspect to all this. It's the other stuff that tends to drive everyone nuts. THAT is why it takes so long to bring a graduate up to speed.

Those of you who think that Engineering is all technical are living in a dream world. If it were just technical schools might not be so far up the back side of the power curve. It's the social and decision making processes that are most daunting. I have yet to find a school that can teach those things.
 
  • #37
JakeBrodskyPE said:
Yawn. Kids these days. :rolleyes: Yes, the technology has changed, but the practicalities and bureaucracies have not.

When I first got into ham radio, a half dozen guys who were interested would gather together in basements and garages to build ham radio satellites. One of those creations is still functioning today, decades after it was first launched (OSCAR 7). The technical challenge of building to a clean sheet of paper is interesting and instructive. However, it is trivial, especially when dealing with something that is basically a one-of creation. More to the point, they didn't have professors telling them how it should be built. They just did it using the technical papers published from the earliest spacecraft experience, their own educated guesses, and practical know-how.

I had many mentors in my ham radio experience. Most hams these days are happy just to know how to assemble a station. I went beyond that. I had experience working in a two-way radio repair shop. I had help designing microwave radios, spread spectrum systems (long before the IEEE 802.11 standards), packet radio, and so on. I did this in 1980 and 1981 as a junior and a senior in high school. I built a crystal phase-locked 10.250 GHz transceiver. I had an early packet radio system built around the W0RLI Terminal Node Controller. I studied electronic warfare systems in my summer internship at Naval Research Lab. I studied and constructed experiments in audio compandering, narrow band integration of slow CW signals, early micro-processor systems, and many other things. By the time I got to college, I'd already seen and done many times more than most people would ever get in their entire college experience.

Yes, some of the finer points of semiconductor physics were interesting. The Fluid dynamics class was interesting too. However, the math was mostly stuff I'd already seen in another form. The signals class would have been much more interesting if the instructor were worth anything. Thankfully I had a lot of practical intuition from my earlier experience to throw at that class that got me through it.

However, today, when designing half a dozen chemical feed systems for a large water treatment plant that must be reliable, economical, intrinsically safe, secure from cyber attack, coordinated with concurrent projects, integrated into existing control systems, and built on existing infrastructure --that's a completely different issue. In many ways it is far more difficult than putting a satellite in space.

By the way, that's a small project. Don't get me started on what larger ones are like. The technical part is often the easiest and simplest aspect to all this. It's the other stuff that tends to drive everyone nuts. THAT is why it takes so long to bring a graduate up to speed.

Those of you who think that Engineering is all technical are living in a dream world. If it were just technical schools might not be so far up the back side of the power curve. It's the social and decision making processes that are most daunting. I have yet to find a school that can teach those things.

Yawn, jaded old men these days. I know Engineering isn't all technical, I work at a national lab and am aware of the bureaucracy that comes with funding, vendor and collaborator politics which holding back projects that'd otherwise be relatively simple to implement. There's an informal fallacy called moving the goal posts, where you basically said nothing practical is done in colleges, than I gave you an example of a practical project done in an academic setting and you're basically saying it doesn't count because you did the same thing outside of an academic setting. Clearly you didn't just play with equipment; but most people, regardless of prior interest or not, would only get the opportunity to come close to accumulating your (impressive) breadth of experience in a college setting where the departments have the resources and labs for research opportunities or connections to outside internships. Especially if a student became interested in engineering later in life and didn't have experiences like yours. I know fairly well that lots of people graduate with the word engineering in their degree's name who are by no means qualified to do engineering work of any sort, that definitely needs to be fixed, but that doesn't diminish the usefulness of a university engineering education as a whole.
 
Last edited:
  • #38
TyPie said:
So, I don't have a degree, but I was curious if companies would hire me as a process engineer.

I understand calculus, diff. Eq, probability theory, statistics, and PDEs. I love thermodynamics, microbiology, immunology, as well as chemistry (above organic).

I guess the problem for me is getting past the HR. They usually just think I'm lying on my resume. Is it possible to just get the FE exam passed in any state without working as a tech for several years?
This was not uncommon 50 years ago but since then large companies especially will probably not hire you as an engineer without a 4 yr. degree. Why not just get one? Accelerated programs exist; you should beble to complete an accredited one within 2 - 2 1/2 yrs.
 
  • #39
One learns a lot of engineering on the job. One learns a lot of the practice of medicine on the job as well, Nonetheless, we insist that our physicians have a medical degree. I don't think it's crazy to apply the same requirement to engineers.
 
  • #40
rude man said:
This was not uncommon 50 years ago but since then large companies especially will probably not hire you as an engineer without a 4 yr. degree. Why not just get one? Accelerated programs exist; you should beble to complete an accredited one within 2 - 2 1/2 yrs.
I thought the accelerated ones were kind of jokes. Like where they promise to teach you quantum and fluid mechanics in one month to become an engineer.

Vanadium 50 said:
One learns a lot of engineering on the job. One learns a lot of the practice of medicine on the job as well, Nonetheless, we insist that our physicians have a medical degree. I don't think it's crazy to apply the same requirement to engineers.
As a scientist yourself, if you strongly believed that some one was going to die without immediate help, would you not attempt to help them? There are paramedics that won't take a stretcher on the green at a golf course, because it's against the rules. Are you really no different from those paramedics? Do you not know how to perform a simple tracheotomy? Do you atleast know enough to attempt CPR? Are you CPR certified?
 
  • #41
clope023 said:
There's an informal fallacy called moving the goal posts, where you basically said nothing practical is done in colleges, than I gave you an example of a practical project done in an academic setting and you're basically saying it doesn't count because you did the same thing outside of an academic setting. Clearly you didn't just play with equipment; but most people, regardless of prior interest or not, would only get the opportunity to come close to accumulating your (impressive) breadth of experience in a college setting where the departments have the resources and labs for research opportunities or connections to outside internships. Especially if a student became interested in engineering later in life and didn't have experiences like yours. I know fairly well that lots of people graduate with the word engineering in their degree's name who are by no means qualified to do engineering work of any sort, that definitely needs to be fixed, but that doesn't diminish the usefulness of a university engineering education as a whole.

You have it backwards. Could one learn at least some of the technical aspects of Engineering in a school? I suppose it is possible even though the institution is stacked against it. My point is that I have found many opportunities outside that setting that worked better. One should not need to pay enormous sums of money to be institutionalized for the purpose of "learning" something. That is what infuriates me. I think a lot of what passes for a formal education is a damned bureaucrat driven Ponzi scheme. Some day I expect people will look at it and ask whether this is really working as effectively and economically as it should. I think we both know what the answer to that question would be.

When it comes to practical applications, it is most instructive to start from a bottoms-up approach. I've seen both top-down and bottoms-up in real life. I have seen a lot more success from evolutionary bottoms-up projects than revolutionary top-down projects. Unfortunately, schools teach the latter, while what is needed far more frequently is the former. The top-down approach works best when there is experience from what was done before and where things need to improve. In other words, top-down approaches work best later in a career, not straight out of college.

My other point was that we are teaching on the job anyway. We regularly train and update our skills. The organizations that don't keep pace are doomed to fail. The additional overhead of bringing a high school graduate into the fold to teach the more basic technical things is quite minimal. In fact, a refresher for regular staff might be a good thing. During that time, the student learns and applies those concepts right away to reinforce them. Those who are capable of making the most use of that education will find ways to move up through the organization. Organizations that can afford to offer the best opportunities will have better employee retention, loyalty, and productivity than those that can not.

Instead what actually exists today is an HR-driven pigeon-holing process that prevents upward mobility. Looking at educational institutions to remedy that situation is like putting a band-aid on a sucking chest wound. The real problem are policies incapable of reflecting what a person has done, and can do, not the formal education.
 
  • #42
I actually do know CPR, although I do not hold a certification in it.

But in medicine seconds count. I know of no situation where there was engineering to be done, and it had to happen before one could locate an actual engineer.
 
  • #43
JakeBrodskyPE said:
You have it backwards. Could one learn at least some of the technical aspects of Engineering in a school? I suppose it is possible even though the institution is stacked against it. My point is that I have found many opportunities outside that setting that worked better. One should not need to pay enormous sums of money to be institutionalized for the purpose of "learning" something. That is what infuriates me. I think a lot of what passes for a formal education is a damned bureaucrat driven Ponzi scheme. Some day I expect people will look at it and ask whether this is really working as effectively and economically as it should. I think we both know what the answer to that question would be.

When it comes to practical applications, it is most instructive to start from a bottoms-up approach. I've seen both top-down and bottoms-up in real life. I have seen a lot more success from evolutionary bottoms-up projects than revolutionary top-down projects. Unfortunately, schools teach the latter, while what is needed far more frequently is the former. The top-down approach works best when there is experience from what was done before and where things need to improve. In other words, top-down approaches work best later in a career, not straight out of college.

My other point was that we are teaching on the job anyway. We regularly train and update our skills. The organizations that don't keep pace are doomed to fail. The additional overhead of bringing a high school graduate into the fold to teach the more basic technical things is quite minimal. In fact, a refresher for regular staff might be a good thing. During that time, the student learns and applies those concepts right away to reinforce them. Those who are capable of making the most use of that education will find ways to move up through the organization. Organizations that can afford to offer the best opportunities will have better employee retention, loyalty, and productivity than those that can not.

Instead what actually exists today is an HR-driven pigeon-holing process that prevents upward mobility. Looking at educational institutions to remedy that situation is like putting a band-aid on a sucking chest wound. The real problem are policies incapable of reflecting what a person has done, and can do, not the formal education.
Seems like if people had to pay some crazy amount of money to take a test, then it would bring up the importance of your education. Too many people believe that their degree means they have a better education than everyone.
JakeBrodskyPE said:
Yawn. Kids these days. :rolleyes: Yes, the technology has changed, but the practicalities and bureaucracies have not.

When I first got into ham radio, a half dozen guys who were interested would gather together in basements and garages to build ham radio satellites. One of those creations is still functioning today, decades after it was first launched (OSCAR 7). The technical challenge of building to a clean sheet of paper is interesting and instructive. However, it is trivial, especially when dealing with something that is basically a one-of creation. More to the point, they didn't have professors telling them how it should be built. They just did it using the technical papers published from the earliest spacecraft experience, their own educated guesses, and practical know-how.

I had many mentors in my ham radio experience. Most hams these days are happy just to know how to assemble a station. I went beyond that. I had experience working in a two-way radio repair shop. I had help designing microwave radios, spread spectrum systems (long before the IEEE 802.11 standards), packet radio, and so on. I did this in 1980 and 1981 as a junior and a senior in high school. I built a crystal phase-locked 10.250 GHz transceiver. I had an early packet radio system built around the W0RLI Terminal Node Controller. I studied electronic warfare systems in my summer internship at Naval Research Lab. I studied and constructed experiments in audio compandering, narrow band integration of slow CW signals, early micro-processor systems, and many other things. By the time I got to college, I'd already seen and done many times more than most people would ever get in their entire college experience.

Yes, some of the finer points of semiconductor physics were interesting. The Fluid dynamics class was interesting too. However, the math was mostly stuff I'd already seen in another form. The signals class would have been much more interesting if the instructor were worth anything. Thankfully I had a lot of practical intuition from my earlier experience to throw at that class that got me through it.

However, today, when designing half a dozen chemical feed systems for a large water treatment plant that must be reliable, economical, intrinsically safe, secure from cyber attack, coordinated with concurrent projects, integrated into existing control systems, and built on existing infrastructure --that's a completely different issue. In many ways it is far more difficult than putting a satellite in space.

By the way, that's a small project. Don't get me started on what larger ones are like. The technical part is often the easiest and simplest aspect to all this. It's the other stuff that tends to drive everyone nuts. THAT is why it takes so long to bring a graduate up to speed.

Those of you who think that Engineering is all technical are living in a dream world. If it were just technical schools might not be so far up the back side of the power curve. It's the social and decision making processes that are most daunting. I have yet to find a school that can teach those things.
People think water treatment engineers are no better than waste management engineers. People also think that small scale chemistry works exactly like scaled up chemistry, but they don't take into account all the different fluid properties. One of the most impressive things I've seen would be California's massive water treatment plant and Andritz' in Austria. If i remember right, they produce 50% of austria's power by just 1 hydroplant. I don't think satellites as he was saying is more impressive than this. http://www.andritz.com/hydro.htm
 
  • #44
Vanadium 50 said:
I actually do know CPR, although I do not hold a certification in it.

But in medicine seconds count. I know of no situation where there was engineering to be done, and it had to happen before one could locate an actual engineer.
So you wouldn't trust yourself doing CPR, because you don't have a degree stating that you can do it? You don't think heat loss is important to watch out for if some one gets a big cut? You can probably come up with numerous ideas about how to help some one off basic physics...
 
  • #45
Vanadium 50 said:
I know of no situation where there was engineering to be done, and it had to happen before one could locate an actual engineer.

I wish I could say the same thing. Try working on a construction site where the existing infrastructure doesn't line up with what the plans depicted. Time is BIG money in those situations and it often leads to some really unfortunate decisions.
 
  • #46
JakeBrodskyPE said:
You have it backwards. Could one learn at least some of the technical aspects of Engineering in a school? I suppose it is possible even though the institution is stacked against it. My point is that I have found many opportunities outside that setting that worked better. One should not need to pay enormous sums of money to be institutionalized for the purpose of "learning" something. That is what infuriates me. I think a lot of what passes for a formal education is a damned bureaucrat driven Ponzi scheme. Some day I expect people will look at it and ask whether this is really working as effectively and economically as it should. I think we both know what the answer to that question would be.

When it comes to practical applications, it is most instructive to start from a bottoms-up approach. I've seen both top-down and bottoms-up in real life. I have seen a lot more success from evolutionary bottoms-up projects than revolutionary top-down projects. Unfortunately, schools teach the latter, while what is needed far more frequently is the former. The top-down approach works best when there is experience from what was done before and where things need to improve. In other words, top-down approaches work best later in a career, not straight out of college.

My other point was that we are teaching on the job anyway. We regularly train and update our skills. The organizations that don't keep pace are doomed to fail. The additional overhead of bringing a high school graduate into the fold to teach the more basic technical things is quite minimal. In fact, a refresher for regular staff might be a good thing. During that time, the student learns and applies those concepts right away to reinforce them. Those who are capable of making the most use of that education will find ways to move up through the organization. Organizations that can afford to offer the best opportunities will have better employee retention, loyalty, and productivity than those that can not.

Instead what actually exists today is an HR-driven pigeon-holing process that prevents upward mobility. Looking at educational institutions to remedy that situation is like putting a band-aid on a sucking chest wound. The real problem are policies incapable of reflecting what a person has done, and can do, not the formal education.

Jake, what you are talking about is ensuring how engineers who are just starting out can best be trained to become most effective in whatever organization they are working with, but that's not what clope23 and I are talking about. What you do not address is how to educate someone who wants to be an engineer to become an engineer to begin with.

At the risk of being simplistic, engineering is first and foremost the application of scientific knowledge to solve practical, real-world problems (as opposed to simply building things in your backyard like the ham radio). How can anyone in their right mind claim to be an engineer if they do not have some education in at least certain aspects of science, which is precisely what is taught in engineering curricula the world over?

You spend considerable breath bashing the engineering curriculum as being insufficient to train engineers (you routinely refer to engineering graduates as "fools" and "idiots"). Well then, in an ideal world, how would you train a high-school graduate to be come an engineer? By apprenticeship? Should they forget about learning math, physics or other aspects of "theory" that you so routinely scorn?

Furthermore, you routinely state that an engineering education does not prepare graduates for dealing with bureaucracies. Of course it doesn't! No educational program anywhere in the world prepares students for this. We live in the real world; that's not the purpose of school and it never will be.

It seems to me that you are advocating for engineering training that never existed and will likely never exist.
 
  • #47
This thread slowly dissolved into bashing newer engineers with degrees. If you love engineering why not major in it? . "Engineering" is not a one size fits all type of deal. There are so many nuances to a job and you're not even past a prerequisite phase.
 
  • #48
tyjae said:
This thread slowly dissolved into bashing newer engineers with degrees. If you love engineering why not major in it? . "Engineering" is not a one size fits all type of deal. There are so many nuances to a job and you're not even past a prerequisite phase.
It was the other way around tbh. Started when some one said ham radios are basic, and school was easy back in those days.
 
  • #49
TyPie said:
It was the other way around tbh. Started when some one said ham radios are basic, and school was easy back in those days.

I said no such thing, this is an actual straw man.
 
  • #50
StatGuy2000 said:
Jake, what you are talking about is ensuring how engineers who are just starting out can best be trained to become most effective in whatever organization they are working with, but that's not what clope23 and I are talking about. What you do not address is how to educate someone who wants to be an engineer to become an engineer to begin with.

At the risk of being simplistic, engineering is first and foremost the application of scientific knowledge to solve practical, real-world problems (as opposed to simply building things in your backyard like the ham radio). How can anyone in their right mind claim to be an engineer if they do not have some education in at least certain aspects of science, which is precisely what is taught in engineering curricula the world over?

You spend considerable breath bashing the engineering curriculum as being insufficient to train engineers (you routinely refer to engineering graduates as "fools" and "idiots"). Well then, in an ideal world, how would you train a high-school graduate to be come an engineer? By apprenticeship? Should they forget about learning math, physics or other aspects of "theory" that you so routinely scorn?

Furthermore, you routinely state that an engineering education does not prepare graduates for dealing with bureaucracies. Of course it doesn't! No educational program anywhere in the world prepares students for this. We live in the real world; that's not the purpose of school and it never will be.

It seems to me that you are advocating for engineering training that never existed and will likely never exist.
Idk, I've met some pretty weird doctors too. Just look up the trefoil knot bagel.
 

Similar threads

Replies
19
Views
4K
Replies
27
Views
4K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
429
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
4K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
21
Views
4K
Back
Top