Talk:Engineering technology

The list of colleges that offer Eng Tech programs seems incomplete. I've added two that I've happened onto but I am not very knowledgable... We currently wonder if California Polytechnic State University which is listed STILL offers Eng Tech. On their web site we only found course listsing from about 1997. Fholson 12:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Should this be a complete list? The ABET website allows one to browse engineering technology programs by various categories, and a quick glance suggests hundreds of universities in the US have such programs (34 in the Great Lakes region, ...). Is there elsewhere on Wikipedia (e.g., a template or group of templates) that would be better for a complete list, that could be transcluded/referenced from here? Are there specially notable programs (e.g., longest established in a particular area) that should just be listed here instead of having a complete listing? Edurant 21:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Actually, it shouldn't have a list at all per WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory. The ABET link is good enough. MARussellPESE 02:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

The NCEES model law hasn't included ETs as eligible to sit for the FE exam for some time. Most states still sit baccalaureate TAC/ABET accredited ETs [1], but some require post-graduate experience before sitting for the FE [2], and almost all require many more years of experience before sitting for the PP exam [3].

Associate degreed ETs may sit for these exams in some states but they have a lot of years to put in. [4]

Reciprocity/comity for ET-PEs is very problematic for these reasons.

MARussellPESE 02:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

ETs do not make 95% of engineers' salaries in the US. They make 60% to 70% of engineers starting and throughout. See this data from the BLS published data in 2005:

Engineers, n.e.c. Engineering technicians. n.e.c. Civil engineers Drafting occupations Electrical and electronic engineers Electrical and electronic technicians Mechanical engineers Mechanical engineering technicians

$39.36 $24.94 - 63% $32.49 - 68% $21.99 $39.04 $23.91 - 61% $31.88 $22.65 - 71%

MARussellPESE 02:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Education

After a quick internet search, the following advanced degree ET programs were found: [5], [6], [7], [8], and so on ....

• Worldwide Perspectives

The Sydney Accord applies to Engineering Technology academic equivalence. Hopefully, this section can be expanded in the future to provide a more worldwide view of Engineering Technology.

• Professional Engineer Licensure

The title of the section was changed for better clarity on what type of licensing the section pertained to. Also, a brief description for the NCEES Model Law was added.

• Typical Positions

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics includes entries for Engineers and Engineering Technicians. It does not contain statistics for “Technologists.” Individuals graduating from ET may be employed as technicians, technologists, engineers, or other variations based upon education, employer preferences, or other factors. Similarly, salary was not included due to the fact that it is tied to the sub-field of ET the individual entered, education level, and the type of work obtained.

• External links

Added links to certain engineering organizations as well as links providing further information about Engineering Technology that do not currently fit into this article. ndyguy 00:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Reverted for the following reasons:

• there was no reason to remove the second source; it demonstrates points of view on the controversy in a academic paper
• this statement: "a proposal for future legislation on professional engineering standards" explains to readers that the Model Law is merely a proposal and not yet an enacted law
• this statement: "and expected to become less common" is an opinion not backed up with a credible source

ndyguy 16:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately, Ndyguy, you appear to be misinformed on this issue.

• The Taylor, et. al., document is not an academic paper. It's a draft of conference proceedings that don't appear to have been finalized. It's not published, so fails WP:V.

I can understand why it wasn't published. Beyond merely documenting contending positions, it is a very poor work that relies on opinion and anecdote — reflecting poorly on the authors.

• The NCEES Model Law is by no means merely "a proposal for future legislation on professional engineering standards". It is the standard model law for engineering licensure in the United States. It is the consensus document of the various state licensing boards and national engineering professional societies for the highest standards of licensure. Its language is unambiguous. From the introduction:

… this document should be used as a reference work …

Standards presented in this publication have been approved by the NCEES Member Boards and represent optimum, realistic levels of qualifications for initial and subsequent licensure to ensure protection of the public’s interest. [Emphasis mine]

Qualifying statements watering that docuement down are misleading to say the least.

• The statement "expected to become less common" is not opinion, but represents the editorial postion of that Engineering Times, PE Magazine, and the official position of NSPE, have taken for years. Unfortunately, PE Magazine is available online only to NSPE members and both it and ET maintain limited back-issues, making direct reference difficult.

Licensure for ET grads is anything but easy. This article should reflect that reality and not white-wash it.

• Fifteen states do not recognize the baccalaureate ET degree, and that number is declining.
• Of those states that do, most require some level of additional experience. Often twice as much.
• Taken together, those two points make reciprocity for ET grads a nightmare. ASCE warns students considering ET programs that there are ramifications for licensure for ET grads.

The current draft of ASCE's Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge for the 21st Century does not currently include the bacalaureate ET degree; however that position is under review. That is because the baccalaureate ET degree itself is undergoing radical change. The current ABET Accreditation Criteria clearly require math beyond triginometry.

"Integral and differential calculus, or other appropriate mathematics above the level of algebra and trigonometry, constitutes the foundation mathematics for baccalaureate programs."

This is a significant shift in ET education. For years ET grads and profs insisted that math beyond trig was not required for the practice of engineering. These arguments were peurile, irresponsible, and unprofessional; but, rather than re-hash that here, suffice it to say that those proponents have fundamentally lost the argument.

This is still short of both the ASCE Draft BOK math outcome:

"Solve problems in mathematics through differential equations and apply this knowledge to the solution of engineering problems."

and the current ABET Civil, Environmental or Architectural Engineering curricula:

"The program must demonstrate that graduates have: proficiency in mathematics through differential equations, probability and statistics, …"

Mechanical Engineering:

"The program must demonstrate that graduates have: … the ability to apply advanced mathematics through multivariate calculus and differential equations; …"

or Electrical Engineering:

The program must demonstrate that graduates have: knowledge of probability and statistics, including applications appropriate to the program name and objectives; and knowledge of mathematics through differential and integral calculus, …"

Whether ET programs will accept genuinely advanced math in their programs or not appears to be in flux. But, they've lost their age-old argument that one "only needs trig to practice". Meanwhile, the professional societies are in lock-step that advanced math is indeed required. I don't see eithe NSPE or NCEES changing their position until ET programs toe the line. MARussellPESE 04:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

The statement represents original research and has no basis.ndyguy (talk) 20:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

We've got a number of dead links in the refs. They need repair, and I don't have time right now. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 14:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)Reply