Licensure of Engineering Technologists: Part I – Current Status

This is the first in a series of blog articles that will examine issues pertaining to the licensure of engineering technologists as professional engineers in the U.S. This is a matter that is not often discussed in the engineering profession, and it is controversial among some professional engineers and among many engineering technologists. This first article describes the current status of how we license, or do not license, engineering technologists in the U.S. Future articles will contrast engineering and engineering technology accreditation criteria and curricula, and address how other countries distinguish among the roles and responsibilities of engineers and technologists.

The Engineering Technology Accreditation Commission (ETAC) of ABET accredits both two-year AS programs, educating engineering technicians, and four-year BS programs, educating engineering technologists. There is at least one accredited electrical engineering technology program that advertises a three-year BS degree. As a confusing issue, four-year engineering technology programs have historically ranged from algebra-based curricula to more rigorous calculus-based curricula, some of which are difficult to distinguish from engineering curricula. Recent changes in ETAC accreditation technology have characterized mathematics requirements for all ETAC programs going forward as “differential and integral calculus or other mathematics above the level of algebra and trigonometry.” This and future blog articles are referring to technologists educated through four-year ETAC programs.

How do we currently license BS-level engineering technologists in the U.S.? That is a long story. The NCEES Model Law and Model Rules require a BS degree from an Engineering Accreditation Commission (EAC) of ABET-accredited program or equivalent. There is no mention of ETAC of ABET-accredited programs. The Model Law is silent on this issue. The NCEES requirements for the equivalency evaluation of non-ABET accredited programs state, “engineering technology courses cannot be considered to meet engineering topic requirements.” Some state boards have interpreted a program’s ETAC of ABET accreditation as demonstrable proof that it is not the equivalent of an EAC of ABET-accredited degree, or the program would have applied for EAC accreditation. Since the Model Law does not include provisions for licensing engineering technologists, that has been and is the purview of the engineering licensing board in each jurisdiction. An NCEES position statement recommends if states do choose to provide a pathway for licensure of engineering technologists, that additional years of engineering experience be required. Historically, jurisdictions have either chosen not to allow licensure of engineering technologists as professional engineers, or, in many cases where there are such provisions, they have required additional years of progressive engineering experience prior to approving an applicant to sit for the PE examination. There are no jurisdictions that license engineering technologists separately.

The current status of PE licensure requirements for engineering technologists in each state is presented in the table below. This table was compiled a few years ago based on an NCEES PE board survey, and was believed accurate then. If the reader is an engineering technologist interested in becoming licensed, he or she is strongly encouraged to contact the state licensing board to confirm current requirements. Do not rely on the data in this table.

Status of PE Licensure Requirements for Engineering Technologists by State Jurisdiction
Status (No= not allowed, #=years of engineering experience required)
ETAC ABET 4 Year Degree
North Carolina
North Dakota
New Hampshire
New Mexico
New York
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
4 to 12
West Virginia
4–12 Years
Note - Arizona, the District of Columbia, New Jersey and Utah did not respond to the survey
Note - This table is not definitive. The information is taken from a survey summary, and the specific requirements vary in clarity and requirement from state to state. Refer to state laws and rules for specific information.

Seventeen jurisdictions do not now have an established pathway for licensure of engineering technologists as professional engineers. Of the other states, all but four require additional years of experience beyond the four years required for an applicant with a degree from an EAC-ABET-accredited program. In these other states, an ETAC graduate typically would need to possess a BS degree from an ETAC-ABET-accredited program, pass both the FE and PE exams, and demonstrate the requisite years of engineering experience.

NSPE’s long-standing policyhas been that a BS from an EAC-ABET-accredited program should form the minimum educational qualification for licensure.

The “Career Guidance” section of NSPE’s position statement regarding engineering education defines the two careers as follows.

The National Institute for Certification of Engineering Technologies (NICET, a division of NSPE) defines technologists as follows:
“Engineering technologists are members of the engineering team who work closely with engineers, scientists, and technicians. Technologists have a thorough knowledge of the equipment, applications, and established state-of-the-art design and implementation methods in a particular engineering area.”

In conclusion, engineering licensure practices in the U.S. are such that engineering technologists cannot obtain a license to practice as a professional engineer in 1/3 of jurisdictions, but are capable of obtaining a PE license in the other 2/3 of states if they pass both the FE and PE exams and typically have more years of progressive engineering experience than is required of engineers.
Comments are encouraged in the space provided below.

Review and input provided by L. Robert “Larry” Smith, P.E., F.NSPE; Bernard R. Berson, P.E., P.L.S.,F.NSPE; and Carmine C. Balascio, Ph.D., P.E.

Published February 11, 2013 by Craig Musselman, P.E., F.NSPE

Filed under: Licensing, Engineering Technologists,

The views expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of and should not be attributable to the National Society of Professional Engineers.

Comments are moderated and do not appear on the site until after they are reviewed.


I think NSPE should change their policy to support holders of the B.S.E.T. degree in obtaining their P.E license, but require demonstrated additional qualifying experience. I am a member of NSPE, Holder of a B.S.E.E.T. degree, P.E in GA, and also currently enrolled taking courses to obtain the B.S.E.E. degree.  Maybe I'll feel different once I obtain the B.S.E.E. degree after I see how much additional knowledge I obtain, however, somehow I doubt that will happen.  

Thursday, February 14, 2013 9:38 AM by Drew Howard, P.E.

One issue that I see is the difference between engineering technology programs.  There are programs offered by trade type technical schools that are not up to the same standards as regular 4 year institutions.  At Penn State, where I obtained my degree, the professors were the same professors that taught regular engineering courses and oftened used the same "course" material for both.  I did well in school (3.5 GPA).

After graduating I did go down the path to be licensed in PA which allows technology graduates.  I passed both the EIT and PE exams on the first time with very good scores which I contributed to my education at Penn State.  A friend from high school, the valivictorian of our class) that graduated with an engineering degree, took 2 times to pass the EIT and gave up on the PE after his third time.  

Recently I went back to school for my Master's in Engineering.  I currently have a 3.7 GPA and felt I was way ahead of my fellow classmates, many of whom had engineering degrees.

As far as being registered, I only perform engineering on projects that I feel compitant to design.  I have worked with professional engineers that are "engineers", "engineering technologists", and even some that don't have an engineering degree and there is no coorelation to level of work between what degree you have.  The truth is, it is what you learn after you go through school and that is why engineering technology should be allowed.

Thursday, February 21, 2013 9:07 AM by John Hood

I concurr with your point.  I have found the courses provided by my TAC degree to be some of the most valuable in industry.  I can't count how many times I have seen drawings that depict welds to just magically happen in tight spaces.  Unless an engineer is given the opportunity to hold an electrode in hand and make several passes, his/her designs will always be deficient.  
However, I did notice that my university has "dumbed down" the academic requirements for the Mechanical Engineering Technology degree and I am disappointed to see that.  At one time, it closely followed the EAC program but provided courses that were more focused on applications rather than mathematical derivations.
I also agree that it is frustrating that states do not have a path to licensure for people like me, short of going back to school to get a masters degree.  I have been licensed for 10 years by up to five different states (WA, TX, OH, WV, IN) and have been the lead on projects that pushed the boundaries of design... but somehow not qualified enough to have a stamp in those states.

Friday, March 13, 2015 2:53 PM by Andrew Springer

How long ago did you take the FE? I have an undergraduate Technology degree and want to take the FE? Can I take it in PA?

Saturday, April 18, 2015 5:41 PM by Anonymous

Why does the NSPE not work with other organizations to make a standardized path that would allow engineering technologists to obtain there PE? I am an engineering technologist; I completed a ABET/TAC accredited program. My job title is “engineer” but when I explain to people that I am a technologist, they give me a blank stare until I define it as an “applied engineer”. When the opportunity came for be to begin my career in the engineering/technical field, I was married and had a family to support. I worked a full time job and went to school at nights, on the weekends; I worked off shifts to attend the classes that were only offered during the day. However, for me the only school available in my area offered a ABET/TAC program. I talked with three Universities that offered ABET/EAC programs and none of them offered anything other than full time day classes. Two did not even want to talk with me unless I was a fulltime day student.

I am not trying to be arrogant and say that there is not a difference between engineers and technologists. I have grown as a technologist and would like to progress beyond the applied nature of my field. How can I do that? Start over, quit my job, and go back and earn an engineering degree, only to be typecast as an “applications guy”. There should be a program that would allow technologists to build on the skill and experience we have, while bridging education to allow us to be equal with our engineering peers. I have four years of school and over 15 years of experience. Am I at the same theoretical and mathematical level as an engineer with comparable experience? No, of course I’m not. On the other side of the coin I doubt many engineers have as much practical experience as I do.

There is a place for both, technologists and engineers. One should not try to present themselves as the other without due course in education, training, and certification. There has to be a way to bridge the gap and establish a transition for those that are willing to put forth the effort to do so. NSPE and NCEES continue to call for a standard for someone to call themselves an engineer; then they should take the lead in giving those willing to pursue that title the means to do so.

Monday, March 04, 2013 2:10 AM by Allen West

I graduated from Texas A&M University's Manufacturing & Mechanical Engineering Technology program, which is a hybrid of the mechanical and manufacturing disciplines.  I graduated as an EIT in my home state of Texas, and recently became a Chartered Engineer in the UK, which the US Federal Government recognizes as equivalent to a PE.  I am applying to take my PE exam next year in Texas, and also am currently an SME Certified Manufacturing Engineer.  All of my intern and post-graduate experience has been in the oil-and-gas industry.  Prior to attending A&M I worked as a machinist and CNC programmer for 5 years.  So my comments are all made through the lens of a machinist and mechanical design engineer.
The largest issue I see here is a paradigm described and endorsed by NSPE, ABET, and other organizations that sets a discrete dividing line between responsibilities of engineers and engineering technologists.  Engineers are often described as being highly theoretical and working in the "broad societal context" while technologists are described as being very pragmatic and applications oriented.  In my industry, over 90% of the traditional degreed engineers (i.e. ABET-EAC accredited programs) I have met and worked with are focused on delivery of solutions.  These solutions are tied to specific problems, and often take the form of products, processes, and systems that are designed and developed using a combination of analytical techniques and pragmatic thinking.  Although most of these are "design engineers", even those working in roles of manufacturing, quality, and project management are still utilizing this combination of analytical and practical skills to deliver real-world results.
The actual work scope I have observed for engineers has much more in common with the definition of "engineering technologist" than it does "engineer".  I have never met an engineer working in industry whose work scope is purely theoretical; those only seem to appear in academia.  So I would argue that from an industry perspective, the proposed paradigm of engineers being theoretical and technologists being pragmatic is one of pure fiction.  In my experience (as well as the experience of my father, a mechanical engineer with 3+ decades of experience in a variety of industries), there appears to be a lot of overlap between the classes of degrees and the work accomplished in industry.
Additionally, the most commonly repeated argument against including ET graduates as engineers seems to be a repeated focus on the lack of advanced math such as Differential Equations.  I know many engineers, especially those whose areas of expertise focus on machine element design, pressure vessels, and other areas that are stress-analsyis focused, who have never used math more advanced than Algebra in designing equipment.  No offense intended to the proponents of higher level math in engineering, but the formulas used for the design of gearing systems, frames, trusses, pressure vessels, wire rope, etc simply do not require higher math to perform safe, effective design.
I suspect that once again engineering degrees are diverging, and specialized degrees are becoming the solution to an ever wider range of jobs and required skillsets.  This is happening in parallel with engineering degrees becoming more and more diluted by non-technical coursework.  Keep in mind that at one time there was no Industrial Engineering, or Electrical Engineering.  We now consider these degrees to be modern, but originally they were specialized offshoots of Mechanical Engineering.
In the past comments by NSPE and other organizations have been militantly opposed to registration of ET graduates.  I would ask a simple question then.  If an ET graduate is the one performing practical design and analytical calculation work, and making engineering judgement in terms of material selection, safety factors, all with a pragmatic focus, then do you really want the approver of that body of work to be someone that is licensed but is not themselves a pragmatic thinker?  If the answer is yes, I would be concerned that the lack of pragmatic thinking in a traditional engineer would make them not qualified (although licensed) to approve tactical decisions.
In conclusion, I believe that there is room for both Engineering and Engineering Technology graduates within the licensure system.  I also believe that approval for licensure should be based on their scope of work compared with the body of knowledge of their degree.  Most of the detractors of ET are typically people who have not even reviewed the curriculums about which they speak, and often simply refer to the opinions of organizations like NSPE, who have applied a one-size-fits-all approach, although even in the body of this blog there is discussion about the wide variety of curriculums that carry the lable of "engineering technology".  I appreciate the effort that NSPE has put into the NICET organization, however when I read through the opportunities on their website, I get the sense that NICET is really catering to people that are more technicians than technologists or engineers.  I would challenge NSPE to consider an alternative to its current policy, that on occasion seems to adopt a crusade-like fervor to demonize ET graduates that work around, with, and as engineers.  I would also like to caution that discriminatory practices by degree are troubling in a world where licensed engineers that demonstrate a lack of technical competency are encountered on a daily basis.
If someone from NSPE would like to discuss with me, feel free to email at

Thursday, November 20, 2014 12:17 PM by Jeremy Cain

The EET program is a lot more prepare to EE design. The EET classes contain matrix,vector, linear transformation in circuit analysis calculus 3 contains all this. vector s and Orthogonality are in communication class EET. It is formulas design and lab to support the design for EET. i think ABET and IEEE do not do research and do not research the EET if they continue in the technical field where more math is applied and EE goes to management. I believe that EE or ME MEF as soonas 2 years past they emigrate to business management and the thecnical design and formulas EET continues improving the knowledge.So EET has the more support to get a professional Engineer  License than ME or MFE etc. 

Wednesday, November 26, 2014 5:12 PM by Felix

A traditional, full time work career is 30yrs plus.  The vast majority of EEs have (2) choices at the 10yr OTJ experience milestone:  (1)tell others to do for them, or (2) practice in the R&D conceptual sector as is consistent with a PhD curriculum.
The fierce controversy in this blog stems from the value placed on the tangible creation by most economic segments.  Beyond the 10yr career mark, the technologist regularly and consistently surpasses the engineer in useful skills of the design/build/integration profession.
It is NOT a question of intelligence and/or abilities.  It's just that the technologist very likely becomes more "learned" in the applied field of engineering thru continued exposure and experience.  Most "engineers" (acedemia theorists) abandon the difficulties of creationists early career and therefore become "rusty" or "out of practice" with the necessities of the technical world of design.
This said, traditional EAC programs pre-date and outnumber ETAC programs.  Licensure boards hold EAC "grandfathered" seats and also majority rule.  It shall not be reconciled easily.  Doers and tellers mix like oil and water... they don't.  
The weird thing is: Engineers as applied engineers just don't exist anymore, however applied engineer is almost always synonymous with technologist. State professional licensure was devised to protect the general public from the tangible; not the research world... so long story short, I don't see the distinction in these two groups [for state licensure] other than politics and personality diversity.

Saturday, February 21, 2015 12:49 PM by Mark

I have a degree in Bachelors of Science: Architectural Engineering Technology, My degree period is during a time when it was acreddited by NCEES, it is part of the Historically Acreddited Degrees from Wentworth Institute of Technology. Am I able to obtain EIT without the 4 years of work experience on top of the degree, is that something that is grandfathered in? I so far have not been able to locate some period 2006-2007 information if Mass accepted a BAET degree.
Thanks in Advance

Tuesday, March 17, 2015 4:15 PM by Royce

I agree with Mr Cain for the most part. The problem is in this country we do not have a dividing line in the workforce defining Engineers vs Technologists. So Technologists are placed in "Engineering" roles and Engineers are finding jobs that are honestly more suited to Technologists.
    My worry is that I spent a lot of money and time going to college to be a Mechanical Engineer and guys that have an associates in engineering technology are getting the same job. Now for the most part these jobs should be more pointed toward Technologists eg. Production supervisors or Maintenance supervisors. However with the lack of inovation and the "Do it now not do it right" mentality there seem no place for Engineers to do the theorhetical work and design of things we would need a Technologist to assist us with.
    If nothing is done to standardize the deffinition and role for each of these professions they will meld into one and then disolve into nothing as the deffinitions get looser and looser. And when the HR manager has no idea the difference from one to another we will all loose. There will no longer be any incentive to go for a "higher" education because you can get one from an online college for a couple bucks and get a job designing something you have no idea about.
    So now how to fix it. I have no idea who I should or can talk to about getting something like this impemented but we NEED a defined set of rolls and expectations for Engineers and Technologists. having done that ABET should stop trying to meld the two together. Though I think that with the definitions this will be easier. Let the education cater to the job. Let the student choose the education to fit them. Then let the job know that they need to ask for what they want. An Engineer or a Technologist. This may be a place where we do need some sort of regulation accross all jobs. Which is the ultimate goal right? To find a job that fits what you want to do and what you are good at? Engineers and Technologists are capable of many things they have already shown that they are cleaver and flexible by completing the course work. So stop asking for a "widget encapulation and redesignation engineer" That is not a thing. You want someone with x education whos job it will be to do y. That is it.
Anyway let me know if I am way off base or if you know who to talk to in order to get this started.

Wednesday, April 15, 2015 3:34 PM by Ray Utter

So I have a 4 year undergraduate degree in Engineering Technology from a school in Louisiana. I went on to another university in Alabama to do my Masters of Science in Civil Engineering. After this, I tried to register to do the FE/EIT and was denied, both by Louisiana and Alabama.  I called to ask about it and the response was; I needed to take undergraduate engineering classes since you must have an undergraduate degree in engineering, regardless of my masters degree in civil engineering. 
Since 95% of Universities do not get their masters degrees accredited, I am left with a Masters degree in Civil Engineering and cannot become a PE, caught in a loop hole and don't know what to do.
I heard that some states will give you your EIT certificate, even if you have a Technology degree. Can someone shed some light on this? Does anyone know what I could do to become an EIT ? my email is  , I would appreciate any help I can get.
Thank You

Saturday, April 18, 2015 5:33 PM by Anonymous

I'm a "project engineer" with a B.S. in Eletrical and Mechanical Engineering Technology.  I work in the HVAC and energy systems field for an MEP engineering consulting firm.  When I started my career, I was well versed in fluid mechanics, thermo dynamics, rerigeration and power cycles, three phase power, electric transmission, and generation.  In many ways, I was more prepared for the HVAC / MEP field than the BSME or BSEE graduates; most of the EE's I worked with fresh out of school had little or no 3 phase experience, and many ME's didn't have the rigorous perpartion in thermodynamic cycles that I had.  
Now if we were working for NASA or Boeing, the BSME and BSEE may be more perpared than me on the theoretical level.  Howveer, I felt that I had the edge in the HVAC / MEP world.  And here's the kicker: all of my designs, down to moving a toilet in a public building, need to be signed and sealed.  But the Beoing engineer desiging control systems for a 737 gets the industrial exemption.  Almost seems backwards.  
The good 4 year ET schools have rigorous programs that substanially overlap with the engineering science programs.  It's a shame that many states legislate them out of a having a chance to practice their trade.  If they can pass the same tests and have the same or more experience, I dont see why they can't get licensed as well.  

Monday, April 20, 2015 5:07 PM by Jim

The EET classes contain matrix,vector, linear transformation in circuit analysis calculus 3 contains all this. vector s and Orthogonality are in communication class EET. It is formulas design and lab to support the design for EET. i think ABET and IEEE do not do research and do not research the EET if they continue in the technical field where more math is applied and EE goes to management. I believe that EE or ME MEF as soonas 2 years past they emigrate to business management and the thecnical design and formulas EET continues improving the knowledge.So EET has the more support to get a professional Engineer  License than ME or MFE etc.
The government should help th EET programs because they are the ones that push solar energy theorycal and practical. EET faculty are developing and teaching new curriculum in renewable energy with a focus on photovoltaic systems.

Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:46 PM by EET program

I'm a Registered Professional Engineer in one of the states listed above that allow a graduated from Louisiana Tech University with four (4) year undergraduate Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering Technology (EET) from a fully accredited degree program by Accreditation Commission (EAC) of ABET with the required number of years engineering work experience to be tested and become a Professional Engineer. I passed both the NSPE FE and PE exams.

It's time that the other states (jurisdictions) listed above that will not allow EET with current tested PE from another state to comity and received a PE licensure in that not allow jurisdictions. Some of the states (seventeen jurisdictions (17)) have outdated 20 plus year old laws on the books that are keeping hard-working EET with PE from moving to that state to work.

Thursday, May 28, 2015 4:01 PM by Anonymous

I have an engineering technology 4 year degree and a Masters degree in civil engineering. I have not done the FE as yet; however I was told that I would not be issued a certificate in some staes. Can someone please tell me the states that I can do the exam in and will give me my EIT certificate? I need to get this done ASAP.

Thursday, June 11, 2015 2:28 PM by Rob

This blog reminds me of my strange journey which began in 1980, which was the year I completed my associate degree in engineering technology (ET) and then discovered my local South Carolina university would not accept my credits toward a BS degree in Civil Engineering. This one simple meeting with their academic advisor changed the course of my college career. As recommended by my advisor, I thought I would “fix” the problem by simply transferring out of state to a highly regarded 4-year degree program in ET since all of my associate degree coursework would transfer. I was never informed about any future licensing issues, and I was clueless about any differences between ET and engineering undergraduate education. I graduated with a baccalaureate degree in Architectural Engineering Technology in 1984 and moved back to Columbia, SC. I discovered BSET graduates were not eligible for licensing in South Carolina. Angry but undeterred, I became so obsessed with licensure I drove to Atlanta to take the EIT (FE) in 1985, and passed on the first attempt. In the 1980’s, Florida was the closest state that would allow me to take the PE four years after graduation. In 1988 I drove to Jacksonville, Florida and passed the civil/structural PE on the first attempt. And get this…..I noticed that “National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying, Clemson, South Carolina” was printed at the bottom of my exam. Was I dreaming? Nope. Honestly, you cannot make this stuff up. So here I was way back in 1988 – licensed as a PE in Florida, having passed the South Carolina PE exam developed at NCEES in Clemson, but living and working in South Carolina as a non-PE. When I explained the reason why to people, they were extremely confused. Why wouldn’t they be, since they knew I took the same exam that all other engineers in South Carolina took? I relocated to Charlotte in 1992, and was licensed in North Carolina by reciprocity. I eventually became licensed in South Carolina in 2009 after their laws were revised, requiring an extensive career portfolio submittal and formal interview process that took 15 months.

As strange as it may seem, I agree with NSPE regarding their stance on minimal educational requirements for PE licensure. Why? Because I believe uniformity is needed, and all 4-year degrees that could lead to PE licensure (regardless of what they are titled) should have the same basic undergraduate coursework requirements. ABET ETAC engineering technology degrees could be limited to associate degree programs, and BSET programs could be revised to become the equivalent of an applications-based ABET EAC BS in Engineering (BSE) degree. Graduates of associate degree programs could transfer to an EAC BSE degree program in order to achieve licensure if they want that career path. And just as critical, students in BSET programs who want to transfer to a BSE program and complete an ABET EAC degree should not have to climb Mt. Everest to do so. One would think that creating a more cooperative curriculum between ET and engineering would have been achieved decades ago. Look, it’s not like we are comparing programs in Archeology versus Accounting. Most people in engineering circles know that BSET degrees emphasize more application and less theory. However, both types of graduates are usually working side by side at the same companies, performing similar duties with the same job title in most cases. This is particularly true in the design consulting business, and I have been there and done that for over 30 years. Every BSET graduate I have ever worked with has been employed in a capacity similar to a BSE graduate. Interesting isn’t it? If industry demands more design application in our college curricula, can we not make that happen within our EAC degree programs? Or do we need two separate curricula for graduates to end up in the same place doing the same job? How does a BSET student/graduate get from technologist to engineer if he/she wants an EAC BSE degree? The protocol from university to university for BSET students/graduates to earn an EAC BSE is all over the place, and is largely subjective. How do BSET graduates pursue MS degrees, and how do those who want to become PhD level professors get there without starting over? This graduate studies issue is just as important as professional licensure because it significantly impacts career options. Why create a terminal BS degree in the first place?

The academic/licensing community seems to emphasize certain core undergraduate coursework, and questions the rigor of BSET programs with respect to higher level theory and mathematics. What makes this so paradoxical is that hands-on design experience is the chief ingredient in preparing an intern engineer for professional licensing. Many state licensing boards want to see a more sophisticated math and theoretical background in undergraduate coursework, but in reality it is the ability to perform analysis and develop design calculations and details within our respective discipline’s standard of practice that gets engineers through the PE exam. It seems that ultimately what really matters is applications-based design experience. I cannot understand why this ET versus engineering issue continues today, and I feel it does not benefit our profession. I personally can confirm from a long career in professional practice – few people know or care about the term “technologist”, and I have personally never met anyone classified as such who was working in the design business. It is a term that is basically meaningless – you are considered either an engineer, an intern engineer, a designer, or a drafter/technician….period. The most peculiar aspect is that the career paths for BSE and BSET graduates are connected in many ways within industry, and these graduates are regarded as being similar, but in academia they are treated as being in two separate galaxies. Why such a major disconnect between academia and industry? The truth is that BSET education is misunderstood - it suffers from a lack of identity, a lack of appreciation in academic circles, and inconsistent organizational representation. Folks, if we are going to have two separate ABET 4-year degree programs for students to become professional engineers, the two programs must be equivalent in terms of academic standing. In my opinion there should be one academic standard for undergraduate education for prospective engineers. The primary concern should be preparation for professional practice, and consistency should govern that preparation. BSET’s could be modified and retitled as applications-based EAC programs; it’s a simple choice actually – BSET’s either need to be made equivalent (however that is defined) to BSE’s, or phased out. Honestly, to expect students to devote four years of study to earn a baccalaureate degree and end up being potentially ineligible for PE licensure or engineering graduate studies makes no sense. Options after graduation are just too limited for BSET graduates. Thousands of BSET grads trying to trudge through the minefield of licensing laws, figuring out if their state is a go or no-go, having to wait longer for exam eligibility (a real head scratcher in itself with no defined rationale whatsoever), perhaps having to relocate to another state, wanting to do graduate work but feeling like they are at a dead end.…..this is ridiculous. Had their curricula been modified to be similar to a BSE, this would be a non-issue. The NSPE position is the best way forward – we desperately need nationwide consistency, and insisting on ABET EAC baccalaureate degrees is one way to achieve consistency. We as a profession need to develop a clearer picture of exactly what we are trying to achieve in our academic programs.

Example - consider calculus. I personally have never seen anyone in my entire career use calculus; actually I don’t think I have even heard the word mentioned unless someone was reliving their college days. Academia wants more theory, but industry, which drives the need for PE licensing, wants more application. Are we educating engineers to be more like scientists while industry is emphasizing design application? How much theory is needed at the undergraduate level? It depends on who you ask. Therein lies the problem. I completed two semesters of calculus, but have never used it since passing the FE exam in 1985. Is calculus needed in research? I would say very likely yes. But is it needed in professional practice and PE licensing? No, not from my experience. BSET’s require calculus, but not to the degree that BSE’s do. But if calculus is not used routinely in industry, how much is needed in undergraduate programs? I took two physics courses back in 1979, but they were not calculus-based. (Why is physics taught from two different perspectives in the first place?) Anyway, I can drive either a stick shift or automatic transmission to work each day, but as long as I get from point A to point B, does it matter which car I drive? Do we need calculus-based coursework if we are not using calculus-based analysis in professional practice? Should there not be a strong parallel between the BSE academic world and the industry we work in? That is supposedly why BSET’s were created, to bridge this perceived gap. News flash - why have a gap in the first place? Again, do we need two separate programs for satisfying the needs of the marketplace? Are we designing EAC BSE curricula to develop PE’s and supply the consulting industry with the skills it needs, or are we designing the curricula for potential PhD’s and careers in research? Or are we trying to do both? Can we do both?

There are perplexing differences between the undergraduate education that various engineering boards require for licensure and what universities require of students to be awarded a BSE or BSET degree. Even more astounding are the differences in attitude between various engineering schools when they compare BSE and BSET curricula, with some simply dismissing BSET courses as immaterial. It really is mind-boggling - it seems that at some engineering schools, BSET courses transfer about as well as courses in Art History, and that is no exaggeration. Case in point: the North Carolina Engineering Board, and most others, consider my undergraduate education acceptable for licensure. However, my local university considers my undergraduate education inadequate for even a reasonable class standing if I were to hypothetically pursue an EAC BSCE. Ok… think about this carefully. I am entrusted with designing structures and protecting the welfare of the public when doing so, and that certainly includes facilities at the college of engineering on this same university campus. Since my first set of sealed structural plans dating back to 1990, I have served as the Structural Engineer-of-Record on hundreds of projects, more than I could ever recollect – multi-story building design for commercial, industrial, educational, and military, post-earthquake/hurricane assessment and structural remediation, seismic retrofit, structural forensics, etc. But based on what my local university told me, to simply earn a BSCE I would need to complete over two years of full time coursework. ET coursework doesn’t transfer, and no explanation was given other than it’s “different”. Hmm, must be that mysterious “calculus versus non-calculus” thing again. Is re-taking physics using calculus somehow going to benefit my career after 31 years of practice? To reduce this down to a simple premise, consider this question: if serving as a Professional Engineer for designing structures at the university is not a problem, why is obtaining credit for their design related coursework for becoming an engineer in the first place a problem? So….hypothetically speaking, if I was enrolled I could be sitting in a classroom building that I designed as Engineer-of-Record, having to take classes that teach students how to analyze and design structures to become an Engineer-of-Record. Seriously? Isn’t it time to acknowledge the issue and address the long term future of BSET degrees? Either level the playing field to create two unique programs of equal stature, or stick with one ABET EAC program, and stop kicking the can down the road. - See more at:

Friday, June 12, 2015 9:08 AM by Lee

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.