What are some opinions of a Mechanical Engineering Technology degree

[JaredPM]

What are some of your guys thoughts about a Mechanical Engineering Technology degree?

 

[micromass]

What do you want to hear? Your question is a bit vague.

If you want my opinion, then I think I personally find math to be more interesting than ME. Other people think exactly the other way around.

 

[JaredPM]

I just graduated with a Mechanical Engineering Technology degree from Oklahoma State University and I am having a hard time finding a job.
However, for fun, I am researching differential equations and other applied math subjects. I find it to be extremely rewarding. Differential equations were no part of the MET degree program, so this is all extra.

 

[tygerdawg]

I don't mean to denigrate the MET degree, but...

The MET curriculum is a "watered down" version of the ME curriculum. I've seen it in 2-year and 4-year versions. It isn't simply a reduction of humanites courses, but the major coursework is not as deep or rigorous. MET does not provide the depth of understanding of subjects that survivors of an ME curriculum get. How can this be described well? How about this: MET graduates may be very good designers of things, knowledgeable of CAD programs, how to fit things together. ME grads have deeper skills and would be able to design things optimally through effective use of engineering principles, with least material to accommodate the loads.

There's a place in industry for both. MET is simply not as rigorous or deep as ME and I would think the MET's career options are limited. I wouldn't hire METs to do engineering analysis. But I'd hire them to produce detail drawings and chase things through the shop.

I met a guy who had a EET degree and started a machine building / systems integration business. He started out as an electrical technician that eventually got his EET degree. Then he tried to gain legitimacy by putting "EET" on his business card and calling himself an "Electrical Engineer". That was laughable. And offensive because it reduces the value of the EE degree. He was really good at building electrical panels and programming PLCs. He was really poor at sizing equipment properly, robotic applications, and the overall machine configuration issues for user-friendliness. He was moderately successful because he had a lot of one-time customers, but very few repeat customers.

A bit of a ramble, but did I get my point across? The MET is not a shortcut to be trained as an engineer. It is something less.

 

[JaredPM]

Are you an engineer tygerdawg?

 

[tygerdawg]

Are you an engineer tygerdawg?

JaredPM: Yes, I am. 30+ years experience, BS+MS, PE, and several years of curriculum advisory board work for MET & MfgET programs.

 

[greentlc]

I live in Western Canada and I just graduated from a Mechanical Engineering Technologist program, although I took a few extra math classes( Linear Algebra, Differential Equations, and Vector Calculus) and am moving to obtain a B.Eng. It seems to be a different situation up here. In our province, the grads from our school are highly sought after as technologists. Most of my classmates had jobs before they even graduated. Well paying jobs I might add($45-50000 to start). While you are not an engineer, and do lack a considerable amount of theoretical knowledge, you are still valuable and very employable. This has been my limited experience with a technologist diploma. Where are you located JaredPM?

 

[JaredPM]

I live in Oklahoma...

 

[lisab]

I don't mean to denigrate the MET degree, but...

The MET curriculum is a "watered down" version of the ME curriculum. I've seen it in 2-year and 4-year versions. It isn't simply a reduction of humanites courses, but the major coursework is not as deep or rigorous. MET does not provide the depth of understanding of subjects that survivors of an ME curriculum get. How can this be described well? How about this: MET graduates may be very good designers of things, knowledgeable of CAD programs, how to fit things together. ME grads have deeper skills and would be able to design things optimally through effective use of engineering principles, with least material to accommodate the loads.

There's a place in industry for both. MET is simply not as rigorous or deep as ME and I would think the MET's career options are limited. I wouldn't hire METs to do engineering analysis. But I'd hire them to produce detail drawings and chase things through the shop.

I met a guy who had a EET degree and started a machine building / systems integration business. He started out as an electrical technician that eventually got his EET degree. Then he tried to gain legitimacy by putting "EET" on his business card and calling himself an "Electrical Engineer". That was laughable. And offensive because it reduces the value of the EE degree. He was really good at building electrical panels and programming PLCs. He was really poor at sizing equipment properly, robotic applications, and the overall machine configuration issues for user-friendliness. He was moderately successful because he had a lot of one-time customers, but very few repeat customers.

A bit of a ramble, but did I get my point across? The MET is not a shortcut to be trained as an engineer. It is something less.

I've seen very similar situation with in Civil Engineering. Just judging from my experience and from what I read here on PF, the gap between the technologist degree and the engineering degree is greater in fields where having a PE is critical.

 

[member 392791]

Just do the real thing, not some technologist junk.