Running head: Engineering Technology; The Phantom Occupation of Distinction
ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY
The Phantom Occupation of Distinction
By Paul R. Clark
July 14, 2014 Revised May 28, 2015
Engineering Technology 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Abstract……………………………………………………………………………….. 1 The Nature of Work…………………………………………………………………… 2 International & Domestic Definition……………………….…………………. 2 - 4 Definition of Acquainted Occupations………………………………………… 4 - 5 Work Distinction………………………………………………………………………. 5 – 8 Absence of Distinction………………………………………………………… 8 - 9 Job Titles………………………………………………………………………………. 10 Census of Jobs or Workers…………………………………………………………….. 11
Types of Employers……………………………………………………………………. 11 – 12 Job Placement Problem………………………………………………………... 13 - 14 Education & Training………………………………………………………………….. 15 Concerns with Central Accreditation Control………………………………… 16 – 23 Licensing……………………………………………………………………………… 23 – 30 Industrial Exemptions……………………………………………………….... 24 Professional Trade Associations………………………………………………. 26 Public Safety Matters…………………………………………………………. 30 - 32 Tools & Technologies………………………………………………………………… 32 - 33 International Engineering Technologist……………………………………………….. 33 - 35 Three Tier System Adoption………………………………………………………….. 35 Apprenticeship Programs……………………………………………………………… 36 Inequality Concerns…..…………………………………………………………….. 36 - 40 Conclusions……………………………………………………………………………. 41 - 43 References…………………………………………………………………………….. 44 - 58 Appendix……………………………………………………………………………… 59-
Paul Clark 06/03/14
1
Abstract
This document is a public comment prepared for the Bureau of Labor Statistics to aid in the development of the engineering technology Standard Occupational Code (SOC). The United States occupational codes are used widely by both government agencies and private corporations to establish the occupational distinctions which are used in development of various organizational structures. It is the goal of this paper to identify the unique contributions that engineering technologists provide for our society and to explain why this distinction must be created.
Engineering Technology 2
Nature of Work
The following is a summary of standards required to satisfy the registration benchmarks for recognition as an International Engineering Technologist as specified in the Constitution of the Engineering Technology Mobility Forum (ETMF).
“The work should have required the exercise of independent engineering judgment , the projects or programs concerned should have been substantial in duration, cost, and/or complexity, and the applicant should have been personally accountable for their success or failure. Applicant may be taken to have been in responsible charge of significant engineering work when they have:
(a) planned, designed, coordinated and executed a small project; or
(b) undertaken part of a larger project based on an understanding of the whole project; or
(c) undertaken novel, complex and/or multi-disciplinary work.”
(ETMF Forum, 2014, p6)
The ETMF Constitution provides a good international definition but the US definition is different. A US definition for engineering technologist is as follows:
“Engineering Technology is that part of the technological field that requires the application of scientific and engineering knowledge and methods combined with technical skills in support of engineering activities.
The engineering technologist must be applications-oriented, building upon a background of applied mathematics, science and engineering technology. The technologist must be able to produce practical, workable results; install and operate technical systems; devise hardware from proven concepts; develop and produce products; service machines and systems; manage construction and production processes; and provide sales support for technical products and systems. The technologist has a 4 year BSET degree.”
(UNC, 2014, p1)
Paul Clark 06/03/14
Engineering Technology 3
Another definition for engineering technology in the United States is provided from the American Society of Engineering Educators.
“Engineering Technology is the profession in which knowledge of mathematics and natural sciences gained by higher education, experience, and practice is devoted primarily to the implementation and extension of existing technology for the benefit of humanity.
Engineering Technology Education focuses primarily on the applied aspects of science and engineering aimed at preparing graduates for practice in that portion of the technological spectrum closest to product improvement, industrial processes, and operational functions (Engineering Technology Council, 1992), (ASEE, 2014, p1).
Some additional information is provided.
“Curriculum also includes advanced math and physics coursework and business classes designed to develop students' critical-thinking and project management skills” (Ed. Portal, 2014, p1).
Engineering technologists are defined by the following panel of experts.
“A Delphi panel of 14 experts identified 37 tasks performed by/qualities needed by manufacturing engineering technologists. Most important were work ethic, performance quality, communication skills, teamwork, computer applications, manufacturing basics, materials knowledge, troubleshooting, supervision, and global issues” (Zirbel, 1993, p23-33).
Paul Clark 06/03/14
Engineering Technology 4
The following definitions of related fields are often confused with the proposed engineering technology occupation. The definitions are provided to compare the differences between occupations.
The Definition of a Technician
“Engineering technicians work in a variety of unique work situations, often aligned with professional engineering and architecture fields and each with a fairly distinct set of knowledge and skill requirements. The work involves functions such as research, development, design, evaluation, construction, inspection, production, application, standardization, testing, or operation of engineering facilities, structures, systems, processes, equipment, devices, or materials. Basic knowledge and skills are transferable from one specialization to another.
The positions do not require professional knowledge and abilities for full performance and therefore do not require training equivalent in type and scope to that represented by completing a professional curriculum leading to a bachelor’s degree in engineering or architecture” (OPM, 2007, p10).
The Definition of an Engineer
The American Society of Engineering Educators (ASEE) and the Engineering Council for Professional Development (ECPD) defines an Engineer as follows:
"The creative application of scientific principles to design or develop structures, machines, apparatus, or manufacturing processes, or works utilizing them singly or in combination; or to construct or operate the same with full cognizance of their design; or to forecast their behavior under specific operating conditions; all as respects an intended function, economics of operation and safety to life and property."
One who practices engineering is called an engineer and those licensed to do so have formal designations such as professional engineers, chartered engineers or incorporated engineers.
The broad discipline of engineering encompasses a range of specialized sub- disciplines that focus on the issues associated with developing a specific kind of product, or using a specific type of technology. Engineers borrow from physics and mathematics to find suitable solutions to the problem at hand. They apply the
Paul Clark 06/03/14
Engineering Technology 5
scientific method in deriving their solutions. If multiple options exist, engineers weigh different design choices on their merits and choose the solution that best matches the requirements. The crucial and unique task of the engineer is to identify, understand, and interpret the constraints on a design in order to produce a successful result. It is usually not enough to build a technically successful product; it must also meet further requirements. Constraints may include available resources, physical, imaginative or technical limitations, flexibility for future modifications and additions, and other factors, such as requirements for cost, safety, marketability, producibility, and serviceability. By understanding the constraints, engineers derive specifications for the limits within which a viable object or system may be produced and operated. Engineering is a key driver of human development” (Britannica , 2013, p1).
The definition acknowledges Incorporated Engineers as full engineers. The Incorporated Engineer is declared significantly equivalent to an engineering technologist. (Sydney Accord, 2014)
Work Distinction . The following comparison provided by the Difference Between website explores the distinction between the two occupations.
“Technician and technologist are two different terms. However, these two terms are interrelated. Most people think that these terms mean the same but, when one looks a bit closer, one will find that they are different in many aspects. A technician and a technologist differ in their educational levels and responsibilities.
A technologist has a greater role than a technician. A technician is just a person with a practical understanding of technology. A technician has a good knowledge of the general principles of the field he is in, whereas, a technologist is a person who is completely aware of various technologies. A technician works under a technologist. A technologist’s position is above that of the technician.
First of all, when comparing their education, a technologist will have an engineering degree, whereas, a technician will have a lower degree, or some kind of diploma certificate. Generally, a technician course will last for one to two years, whereas a technologist will have to undergo a course that lasts for four to five years.
When talking about the duties of a technologist, he has a wider range of duties when compared to a technician. The technologist is the team leader, and his duties include research, analyzing, designing, conducting studies, resolving problems, interpreting situations, evaluating situations, developing prototypes and guiding
Paul Clark 06/03/14
Engineering Technology 6
the technicians. On the other hand, a technician is the person who is involved with duties like maintenance, repairs and troubleshooting.
Another difference that can be seen, is that a technologist is solely responsible for innovative ideas, and the technician is responsible for the application of those ideas. Unlike technicians, technologists handle most of the more complex work” (Julita, 2014, p1).
“Engineers deal more with theory and design; ETs turn engineers' ideas into workable things” (Kibilko, 2014, p1).
“The primary tasks of Technicians are to troubleshoot, test, and repair complex apparatus” (O*NET, 2014, p1).
Engineering Technologists are Technical Interpreters or Mediators
The Jefferson Community Technical College describes the function of Engineering Technology in the following capacity:
“This program gives individuals the background to work as assistants to engineers, liaisons between engineers and skilled craftsmen, and plant maintenance specialist. The curriculum combines specialized and related science courses with course work in general education” (JCTC, 2014, p1).
“Closely related to similar fields of engineering, this major is intended to prepare individuals for practical careers in the research, development, and actual fabrication of materials, equipment, and other new products. The technologist will often assist a supervising engineer in product design and may act as a go-between with a manufacturer during production. The major may also touch upon elements of industrial organization and planning and productivity improvement. This study occasionally is found as a concentration within a general engineering program and may be called “manufacturing engineering technology” at some universities” (Precision, 2014, p1).
The engineer technologist is a “liaison” and a “go-between” as indicated by the above references. This necessitates that an engineering technologist would be a technical interpreter between engineering and skilled craftsmen (Technicians).
‘“Jargon, when used properly, defines precisely and concisely the concepts peculiar to a profession. Within a profession, it meets the criteria for clear, brief, specific communication. When used outside that profession, however, it tries to impress rather than to express. Engineers and other professionals need to be taught when--and when not--to use jargon. Engineering students must be made aware that their products will be information, not aircraft, spaceships, engines, or
Paul Clark 06/03/14
Engineering Technology 7
suspension bridges. Engineering students can be taught to communicate technical ideas effectively through a joint course coordinated between the English and the various technical departments. This course could include participation by specially trained technical communication specialists from the English department working with the technical instructors. Course content should be tailored not to the technical student in the classroom, but to the ultimate user of the information developed by the technologist. Such a definition expands the criteria to include effective communication with businesspersons, lay groups, media, politicians, and citizens' groups. The basic objective should be technical communication--a job not finished until the student has communicated accurately with the reader or listener” (HOD)’ (Ransone, 1981, p 95-107).
The IEEE Spectrum online reported this complaint about the communication skills of traditional engineers: "Simultaneously, a crescendo of criticism from industry warned that young engineers so stamped out were not equipped with the skills needed in the work world. All too many fledgling graduates were unpracticed at working in teams, and were inept at communicating with co-workers and managers both orally and in writing. Also, according to industry critics, they were unable to evaluating the costs of developing and manufacturing a product or to assess the impact of prospective technologies on society and the environment. The bottom line: they required too much on-the-job training before they could make useful contributions" (Bell, 2000, p63-67).
Engineer Technologist are Practical Engineers
Thomas Edison didn’t invent the light bulb.
“Of course, Edison's most famous invention to come out of Menlo Park was the light bulb. Edison didn't invent electric lights --there were arc lights already, which were similar to today's street lights. They were very, very bright so people didn't want them inside their houses. At home, people used gas lights, but their open flames were dangerous and they flickered a lot.
Edison didn't just invent a light bulb, either. He put together what he knew about electricity with what he knew about gas lights and invented a whole system of electric lighting. This meant light bulbs, electricity generators, wires to get the electricity from the power station to the homes, fixtures (lamps, sockets, switches) for the light bulbs, and more. It was like a big jigsaw puzzle--and Edison made up the pieces as well as fitted them together.
One tough piece was finding the right material for the filament--that little wire inside the light bulb. He filled more than 40,000 pages with notes before he finally had a bulb that withstood a 40 hour test in his laboratory. In 1879, after testing more than 1600 materials for the right filament, including coconut fiber,
Paul Clark 06/03/14
Engineering Technology 8
fishing line, and even hairs from a friend's beard, Edison and his workers finally figured out what to use for the filament--carbonized bamboo.
The first large-scale test of the system in the United States took place when Edison’s Pearl Street station in New York City’s financial district sent electricity to lights in 25 buildings on September 4, 1882” (Bedi, 2014, p1).
In Thomas Alva Edison’s case he tested 1600 materials and placed the filament in a vacuum. His modifications to the design are what made it practical for use. This is why engineering technologist are said to be practical engineers because the effort in perfecting a primary function of a design can be equal, or greater in burden, than the effort of creating the original design concept. When the primary function of a design is perfected a greater understanding of the original concept is realized as demonstrated by Thomas Edison’s example.
A design can appear to be valid on paper but when it is sent to manufacturing to be constructed the theoretical world will meet reality. Matching the capabilities of manufacturing to the product requirements is a critical task. If the process is too costly to manufacture then the product can become overpriced for the consumer(s). Perfecting the assembly and manufacturing process can lower production costs and allow higher profit margins.
Perfecting the primary function of a design or process may reveal aspects that are previously unknown to anyone including the original designer. The engineering technologist would gain expert knowledge through the practical means of investigation. Some may consider this type of investigation a scientific discovery. Regardless of what it is called it is certainly not appropriate to use the term “assistant” to describe someone that may be the pioneer of a new product, process, or design. The author opposes the use of the term “assistant engineer” to describe the function of an engineering technologist for this reason.
The term “associate engineer” would be undesirable from the author’s perspective. Webster’s defines the definition of the term associate as follows:
1. “To think of one person or thing when you think of another person or thing” 2. “To be together with another person or group as friends, partners, etc” (Webster, 2014, p1).
The problem with the term “associate” is with definition one listed above. It implies a counterfeit implication. Occasionally, the slang term “tech” is assigned to the engineering technologists. Consequential, this incorrectly subjugated engineering technologist as technicians rather than in a distinct field of applied engineering.
Traditional engineers have suggested “assistant engineer” and “associate engineer” as appropriate to describe an engineering technologist. Why not keep it “engineering technologist?” The term “engineering” is attached to the term “technologist” for a reason because they perform engineering tasks. To call an “engineering technologist” only a “technologist” is another form of downplaying the function of an engineering technologist.
Paul Clark 06/03/14
Engineering Technology 9
Absence of Distinction The absence of acknowledgement for engineering technologist by the U.S. corporate world has perpetuated for many years. The Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) system is a critical component for the lack of recognition in engineering technology. The following explanation from the Bureau of Labor Statistics is given for the omission in Docket No. 08-1158.
“Docket No. 08-1158 requested a new minor group for "Engineering Technologists" that would include 14 new detailed occupations, such as Chemical Engineering Technologists and Electromechanical Engineering Technologists. The SOCPC did not accept this recommendation, based on Classification Principle 1 which states that occupations are assigned to only one occupational category and Classification Principle 2 which states that occupations are classified based on work performed. The job title "engineering technologist" is used by workers who are classified in 17-2000 Engineers and by workers who are classified in 17-3000 Drafters, Engineering Technicians, and Mapping Technicians. The title is more appropriately used to identify educational background rather than occupational duties, and the duties performed by Engineering Technologists vary widely. (BLS, 2009, p1).
Docket No. 08-1158 contradicts the previous statements published in the 2006 Occupational Outlook Handbook under the title of “Engineering Technicians.” The 2006 statement is as follows:
“Many 4-year colleges offer bachelor’s degrees in engineering technology, but graduates of these programs often are hired to work as technologists or applied engineers, not technicians" (BLS, 2006).
It is therefore not appropriate to consider engineering technologist in any practice that is classified as an engineer technician (17-3021, 17-3022, 17-3023, 17-3024, 17-3025, 17-3026, 17-3027, 17-3028, 17- 3029, 17-3000, etc.)
A petition has been created supporting the development of an occupational code. A link has been provide in the appendix to this petition.
Paul Clark 06/03/14
Engineering Technology 10
Job Titles
Purdue University indicates that some of the job duties of engineering technologists are as follows:
• Process Control Engineer • Electrical Engineer • Project Manager • Test Engineer • Instrumentation Engineer • Sales Engineer
(IUPUI, 2014, p1)
The Education Portal website indicates the following about graduates of electronic technology bachelor's degree programs. “Engineering Technologist can pursue employment as software developers. They might also work as electronics technologists in the following capacities: • Product development • Manufacturing • Operations • Customer support”
(Education Portal, 2014, p1).
Some additional career opportunities are suggested by (StateUniversity.com) as follows:
• Entrepreneur • Research technologist • Factory supervisor • Sales representative • Industrial consultant • Science teacher • Industrial designer • Technical writer
(Precision, 2014, p1)
Paul Clark 06/03/14
Engineering Technology 11
The Occupation Size Estimate
Currently, there are few ways to track graduates of these programs within the United States because the Standard Occupation Code has not been created. Graduates of engineering technology programs are employed in other categories due to the fact that the human resource departments in many firms utilize the SOC codes that are currently recognized. Few government programs collect statistical data that separate STEM programs into the three distinct occupations (technician, engineering technologist, and engineering programs).
The number of graduates in 2012 from engineering technology programs is indicated as follows:
“There is a huge difference in the number of graduates annually. Data presented on the American Society for Engineering Education Web site indicate that there were about 6,400 baccalaureate degrees awarded in 2012 in engineering technology in the U.S. This compares to over 88,000 baccalaureate degrees in engineering awarded in 2012, an all-time high” (Musselmen, 2013, P1).
The ABET accreditation website indicates the following on their history page:
“In 1936, ECPD evaluated its first engineering degree programs. Ten years later, the council began evaluating engineering technology degree programs” (ABET, 2014, p1).
Types of Employers
The Glass Door website is a unique source of occupation data because it allows the survey participants to post their occupation without a predetermined list. Survey participants have consequentially been able to report engineering technologist titles as a separate distinction from the associated occupations (see the appendix for web link).
“Career opportunities included are: (1) Aerospace/Aviation Engineering Technology, (2) Architecture and Building Construction Engineering Technology, (3) Chemical Engineering Technology, (4) Civil Engineering Technology, (5) Computer Engineering Technology, (6) Drafting and Design Technology, (7) Electrical Power Engineering Technology, (8) Electronic Engineering Technology, (9) Fluid Power Engineering Technology, (10) Industrial Engineering Technology, (11) Internal Combustion Engines Engineering Technology, (12) Mechanical Engineering Technology, (13) Metallurgical Engineering Technology, (14) Nuclear Engineering Technology, and (15) Refrigeration, Heating, Air Conditioning Technology” (ERIC, p1, 1966).
Engineering technologists are hired by a variety of employers. The Glass Door website allows an employer’s name to be reported for confirmation of the existence of the occupation at the firm provided but the individual remain anonymous.
Paul Clark 06/03/14
Engineering Technology 12
(Glassdoor, 2014) Table 1
Paul Clark 06/03/14
Engineering Technology 13
Job Placement
Employers are confused by the ambiguous tasks of determining where engineering technologists fit in the corporate structure. There is a missing rung in the career ladder for engineering technologists. Firms must choose to acknowledge new engineering technologist graduates as either an engineer or a technician. Often it is influenced by the personal judgment of the employer.
When the engineering technologist is placed in the corporate structure as a technician it has a profound effect on their livelihoods. This is especially apparent with young graduates. When this occurs it nullifies the junior and senior years of academia and the individuals are left with student loan payments that command a higher percentage of their paycheck. The individuals are paid at the associate degree professional skill level.
This recommendation for a Standard Occupational Distinction was inspired by the plight of the intern that served under the author’s direction. The intern is a Purdue University graduate of the Westville campus in Michigan City. The following is a report of the author’s experience.
The author’s employer is a Fortune 500 corporation that has recently made structural changes to route all new hires (starting in 2014) that are engineering technologist to the position of technician. Also, the employer has changed the title of all corrosion engineers to corrosion technician and dropped the requirement for the position to an associate’s degree. The department manager offered a transmission engineering position to the intern who is an older student in his thirties. He was perfect for the job. The intern completed the design for a 2.5 million dollar utility project successfully. When upper management changed the corporate structure the position of transmission engineering became restricted to engineering technologist graduates. The intern had to take a corrosion technician position that paid much less. He has a family of three kids and now must pay his student loans with the salary that pays much less.
The author has experienced this career subjugation towards engineering technologist throughout his career. It is a common occurrence in many corporations to place engineering technologist in technician positions. The author was employed as a technician upon graduating high school. He served with various organizations before returning to Indiana State University to obtain a Bachelor’s of Science in electronics technology. Upon graduation the author was still considered to be a technician by employers with 14 yrs. of experience. The author later obtained a Master’s in Business Administration (MBA) and finally shed the technician title.
What is required to obtain another title other than the technician distinction in the United States? There are now master and doctorate level technology degrees. Are these people still only technicians? Are they required to convert their occupations into another recognized distinction in order to be considered something other than a technician? What is the point of achieving a higher education if you will be employed at the same level as a kid that is graduating high school?
Paul Clark 06/03/14
Engineering Technology 14
An ERIC article entitled, “The Impact of Engineering Technology Programs on Engineering” is summarized as follows:
The article “Describes the evaluation of engineering technology programs and the problems faced by the engineering technology graduate. It asserts that the "identity crisis" developing in the engineering community between the engineer and the engineering technologist could be averted if positive steps are taken to spell out the differences between the two (MLH)” (Mehrhoff, 1975, p 65).
“The recruitment process of the Bachelor of Science in Engineering Technology (BSET) program at New Jersey Institute of Technology (NJIT) was evaluated. Surveys were conducted to obtain data. Subjects were 163 NJIT students and 293 employment recruiters who conducted campus interviews. Findings indicate that campus recruiters, a majority of whom were engineers, held a condescending attitude toward the technologist and that they and their middle management lacked an understanding of the technologist's functions. The BSET student left the interview with no job and a low opinion of the program. This negative attitude was also found in instructors. Information being exchanged by executives is not being adequately appreciated by those in direct contact with the students. While the technologist student did not do as well at campus interviews as the engineering student did, he did do well when he approached the corporation. Program usefulness is evidenced by the fact that 60% of technologists surveyed had been technically employed for approximately four years. Steps should be taken to keep the BSET program viable in a changing society and to increase general understanding of the program. While this study is school-specific, it speaks to a general problem in placement and employment” (Author/JLL) (Mennella, J., 1977, p128).
Paul Clark 06/03/14
Engineering Technology 15
Education & Training
There are many valid programs that have engineering technology degrees including. • The Association of Technology, Management, and Applied Engineering [ATMAE] (formerly known as the National Association of Industrial Technology, [NAIT]), • The Distance Education Training Council [DETC] • The Accrediting Commission of Career Schools and Colleges of Technology [ACCSCT] • The Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools [ACICS].
“ABET accredits 3,367 programs in applied science, computing, engineering, and engineering technology at 684 institutions in 24 nations” (ABET, 2014).
“ATMAE currently accredits a total of 180 Baccalaureate level programs (69 Program Only, 111 program/options) in 52 institutions and a total of 252 Associate level programs (168 Program Only, 84 program/options) in 43 institutions and 4 master level programs” (ATMAE, 2014).
There are over 3547 Baccalaureate level engineering technology programs from the two accreditations listed above.
The Level Codes
The United State Department of Education and the National Science Foundation has created an extensive review of education called “Mapping The World of Education (MWE), The Comparative Database.” This book evaluates the educational criteria of the entire world and assigns level codes to degrees, certifications, and diplomas. It is the bible of educational qualifications and is often not a consideration in the creation of job classifications for the U.S. worker.
• The database specifies that a Baccalaureate of Arts/ Science in Engineering Technology is considered to be at level 60. This is at the same level of a Baccalaureate of Arts/Science in Engineering .
Level 60 is defined as follows:
“4-Year Postsecondary Programs and Awards. Postsecondary programs and awards which are designed to represent 4 years of study beyond 12-year secondary awards as operationally defined in CIDS; and which are not second (graduate-level) programs and awards”(USDOE & NSF,1996,Vol. 1, Sec, 1, p31)
Paul Clark 06/03/14
Engineering Technology 16
The Concern of Central Accreditation Control
Is it appropriate for ABET to be the only accreditation for Engineering Technology? At the ASEE/SEFT/TU Berlin International Colloquium (2002) the follow question was raised:
“ABET accreditation came into question when Lyle D. Feisel of the IEEE presented a discussion titled: "ABET Accreditation: Barrier or Bridge to Innovation" (Feisel, 2002, p5).
In the ASEE Prism Online the following information was given:
“Back in the early 1990s, ABET was criticized for being overly prescriptive in its criteria, and for stifling innovation, says Dan Hodge, ABET accreditation director…”
‘With EC 2000 has come more flexibility—but more work as well. “ABET has improved the format tremendously—it's harder on us, but better,” Martinez adds. "Before, it was bean counting in the extreme," he says. "Now, it’s still bean counting, but we get to say what the beans are " (Mulrine, 2003, p1).
In IEEE Spectrum Online the following was written:
"Just as serious, the criteria made no provision for accommodating innovative project-based engineering programs that did not fit neatly into the prescribed curriculum. Educational innovators, like those at Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology, in Terre Haute, Ind., had long objected that the rigid specificity of the criteria discouraged experimentation. Indeed, by the '80s, Parrish said, the conventional criteria had become "a giant cookie-cutter stamping out homogeneous engineering programs producing homogeneous engineering graduates."
"Simultaneously, a crescendo of criticism from industry warned that young engineers so stamped out were not equipped with the skills needed in the work world. All too many fledgling graduates were unpracticed at working in teams, and were inept at communicating with co-workers and managers both orally and in writing. Also, according to industry critics, they were unable to evaluating the costs of developing and manufacturing a product or to assess the impact of prospective technologies on society and the environment. The bottom line: they required too much on-the-job training before they could make useful contributions."
"Matters reached a climax in 1992, when the Big 10-Plus schools--most of the largest players in engineering education--threatened to form their own group for judging engineering programs at big research universities. Worse, the specter arose of the U.S. government creating its own accreditation system” (Bell, 2000, p63-67).
Paul Clark 06/03/14
Engineering Technology 17
The Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) is influencing the development of distance engineering programs as indicated by the University of Omaha.
"Accreditation Boards for Various Professions. In a review of the websites for a range of professional accreditation boards, distance education was given only minor attention. The Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, Inc. (ABET) certifies program-related to engineering and technology. Currently, they do not differentiate between traditional and distance delivery methods or assessments. A large portion of the programs ABET evaluates requires onsite laboratory practice that is ill-suited to distance techniques. When possible, distance delivery is worked into various components of more applicable programs. Likewise, the American Psychological Association (APA) has been slow to address the potential of employing distance education techniques. The accreditation standards created in 1996 do not reflect an inclination to acknowledge or pursue evaluation of this area. Most accreditation boards are more amenable to exploring the potential of distance education than ABET and APA" (Scarpellini & Bowen, 2001, p1).
An article by Thomas K. Grose published in the ASEE Prism Online had the following information to share.
‘Thanks to the Internet, distance education is booming. Schools like Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology that once shunned anything but on- campus education are climbing aboard the virtual-classroom bandwagon. Indeed, programs for graduate engineering students are mushrooming. But for engineering hopefuls in need of undergraduate distance-learning programs, the pickings remain slim. Very slim. Despite some demand for distance undergraduate degrees, the number of engineering schools actually offering them is less than a handful.
What's the problem? Well, says Edwin C. Jones Jr., "It's hard work and it's expensive. And there is no obvious payoff." That tough assessment comes from the retired electrical engineering professor who helped launch Iowa State University's distance-degree program in 1996 and is a proponent of distance education. But engineering bachelor's degrees don't easily lend themselves to distance-learning methods. Indeed, how to give students laboratory experience is a particularly thorny problem. "Course content should drive course delivery, and engineering education (at the undergraduate level) does not lend itself to online delivery," explains Helene Demont, who oversees the engineering outreach program at the University of Wisconsin. Stanford's senior associate dean in the school of engineering, Andy DiPaolo, agrees: "An (undergraduate) engineering degree is tougher to do electronically, especially the labs." Nevertheless, Jones and other academics believe that such programs can be made to work’ (Grose, 2003, p.1).
Paul Clark 06/03/14
Engineering Technology 18
Alwyn Eades Professor of Materials Science and Engineering at Lehigh University had the following information to share:
“ABET not only wants to improve engineering education but has a particular view of how the improvement should be achieved. Since the same organization has the right to decide whether a program is acceptable or not, it is clear that, in effect, it forces all of us to adopt the same view of how engineering education should be made better. We are forced to listen to and adopt the ideas of ABET with regard to innovation because of the monopoly status that ABET wields. Now I do not say that the ideas espoused by ABET are bad. Quite the contrary, they are very good. But they are not the only good ideas. It is quite unacceptable that we should all be pushed into the same mold” (Eades, 2003, p1).
The Virginia Western Community College (2000-02) Fact book (Section 11) stated the goal to, "Reaffirm TAC/ABET accreditation for the computer and electronics technology and Mechanical Engineering Technology programs. Not achieved. A decision was made to not renew TAC/ABET accreditation. TAC/ABET requirements were constraining the curriculum and the benefits did not outweigh the costs" (VWCC, 2000, p1).
In another ASEE Prism article Jack Levy wrote,
"There was considerable discussion of outcomes assessment based mainly on ABET's EC2000 document. The consensus was that while the output approach had much to commend it, the jury is still out on its ultimate effect and that ABET may later have to revisit EC2000" (Levy, 2003, p1).
At the 33rd ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference several conclusions were made in Boulder, CO on November 8th, 2003. The following is an excerpt from the T3H session:
"Is it time to take a second look at the assessment process as it has currently evolving? Under the principles of EC 2000, the accreditation process is supposed to be a partnership between the program and the evaluators, not a court where ABET is the judge and jury. ABET recommends that a communication process between the two parties be developed, where information is shared in both directions. This implies that the particular engineering department has a say in what is important to their mission, thus an assessment process must allow for the department to design their program so it meets the needs of their community and their users. To support this, the assessment process must be developed and “owned” by the faculty at the department level. It must not be a “top down” process dictated by administrators" (Budny,D. ,Krishnan,M., Das,S., Paulik,M., DeLyser,R., Khan,H., Elger,D., Yokomoto,C., Rowland,J., Litt,M., & Carpenter,D., 2003, p1).
Paul Clark 06/03/14
Engineering Technology 19
Alwyn Eades indicates ABET may not be the best accreditation to represent both engineering and technology programs.
“The Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET), as its Web site makes clear, is an organization with two general purposes. On the one hand it serves to accredit programs in engineering and technology. On the other hand it has a mission to act as a driving force for innovation and improvement in engineering education. These are both worthy aims, but they should not be pursued by the same organization. There is a conflict of interest between them. (Eades, 2002, p1).
The ATMAE accreditation is growing in popularity and is acknowledged by the Council for Higher Education (CHEA) as the ABET accreditation is acknowledged. Many institutions that adopt the ATMAE program accreditation already have a regional accreditation. A regional institution can designate their program as an engineering practice without an ABET approval (see the Electrical/Electronic Programs of Thomas Edison College for example). Also, see the programs of the DETC and ATMAE for non-ABET engineering technology programs.
The US department of Education no longer acknowledges ABET or ATMAE. ABET withdrew from being recognized by the US Department of Education when they refused to add new requirements to comply with government standards as reported by the Associate Executive Director’s Report (Kate Aberle).
“Based on the action taken by the ABET Board in its meeting on October 28, 2000 ABET declined to add a requirement for each institution with ABET- accredited programs to file a report on its accredited programs every two years in those years for which a comprehensive or interim review is not scheduled” (Laity, 2001, p1).
"The new requirement was needed to comply with U.S. Department of Education regulations. Accordingly, ABET became non-compliant. Rather than go through an appeals process, ABET chose to withdraw prior to a re-recognition hearing before the Department of Education“(Laity, 2001, p2).
ABET’s withdrawal from the U.S. Department of Education requirements impacted education forever. This historical moment is often discounted as trivial but it implications are profound.
‘"The Department of Education has been very complementary to sort out the facts," Hitchcock said. Despite the findings, ABET withdrew from the Education Department's list of recognized accreditation agencies. "ABET is no longer in the list of accreditation agencies," said Stephanie Babyak, Education Department spokeswoman. "ABET withdrew from recognition.” Neither ABET or Springsteel could be reached to comment on ABET's withdrawal’ (Wyrwich, 2001, p1).
Paul Clark 06/03/14
Engineering Technology 20
What did Congress do to address this issue?
"In 1994, Congress removed the authorization of the USDE to recognize specialized accreditation agencies unless specifically required to receive federal program support. ATMAE, as well as many other specialized accreditation agencies, was therefore no longer recognized by USDE. ATMAE is currently a member of the Association of Specialized and Professional Accreditors (ASPA)" (S. Strong, M. Kassapoglou, J, Dugger, & A. Rudisill, 1999, p1).
The U.S. Department of Education no longer has the direct authority to specify accreditation criteria to ABET and other specialty accreditations. It will be difficult to rein in specialty accreditations to act at the best interest of society without this authority.
The U.S. Department of Education is no longer in control of specialty accreditations what incentive is there for accreditations to modernize their programs? Why should they adopt any new policy if they don’t want to change? Competition is a good solution to amend this issue.
Many people are confused by the favorable status granted by licensing authorities. They assume that some accreditations are superior to others because they apply to a licensed occupation. If a license is not required then the jurisdiction of recognition is passed to another qualifying body.
“Most legitimate accrediting organizations in the United States are recognized by either the Council on Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) or the U.S. Department of Education” (ABET, 2014, p1).
The Council for Higher Education (CHEA) establishes recognition based upon quality assurance and quality improvement . (CHEA, 2014, p1) The U.S. Department of Education establishes recognition by quality & integrity. (USDOE, 2014, p1). Establishing the rank or stature of accreditations is therefore not the focus of CHEA or the USDOE review. The USDOE or CHEA does not establish the superiority of one accreditation over another if they are at the same level of academia.
Chart 1
Paul Clark 06/03/14
Engineering Technology 21
A Shortage of Participation
The Boston Globe article titled A Visa Shortage (2004) addresses the future crisis that the US is expected to face. An excerpt from the article states:
"If this country's universities were producing enough US-born scientists and engineers, its businesses, hospitals, and schools would not be so dependent on non-US technical employees. But, especially now that the economy is recovering, the shortage of such highly trained personnel threatens to put a brake on growth. For the fiscal year that began last Oct. 1, Congress authorized 65,000 of the specialized H-1B visas for foreign scientists, engineers, and workers in a handful of other fields..." (Boston Globe, 2004, p1).
An article from Raytheon supports that this issue is still a problem today.
“Despite multiple initiatives to improve science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education in the United States, America is still not producing enough workers to fill current and future STEM jobs, according to the new U.S. News/Raytheon STEM Index, unveiled today at www.usnews.com/news/stem-index ” (US News, 2014, p1).
The Sloan foundation indicates one reason for the bottleneck of train workers in STEM programs.
“While close to 320 engineering schools in the US have received accreditation from the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) for their undergraduate programs, only two institutions offer undergraduate engineering programs that are almost completely online” (Sloan, 2012).
The Sloan Foundation has generously donated $300,000 to some schools to develop online undergraduate engineering programs over a decade ago.
On March 31, 2014, ABET was requested to provide a complete list of 100% online Bachelor of Engineering Degree programs that are EAC accredited. ABET was fast to respond with a list that is included in the appendix.
In review of the 2014 list provided by ABET only two programs were truly EAC accredited and one was a Masters level program. ABET later confirmed that there was only one online Engineering Baccalaureate degree that was fully ABET/EAC accredited in the nation.
Tom Gibson’s article Engineers in the Distance in the magazine known as Mechanical Engineering addresses undergraduate online engineering education.
Paul Clark 06/03/14
Engineering Technology 22
The article specifies:
“Arizona State University offers online Bachelor of Science in engineering degree in electrical engineering, engineering management, and software engineering through its Ira A. Fulton Schools of Engineering. North Carolina State has a 2 + 2 program where a student can go to a partnering university at the east and west ends of the state for the first two years of their undergraduate work.”
The Indiana State statute on the acceptance of distance learning is indicated as follows:
IC 25-1-4-3.2 Distance learning methods Sec. 3.2. A board or agency regulating a profession or occupation under this title or under IC 15, IC 16, or IC 22 shall require that at least one-half (50%) of all continuing education requirements must be allowed by distance learning methods, except for doctors, nurses, chiropractors, optometrists and dentists. As added by P.L.227-2001, SEC.1.
IC 25 1-4-3.2 has little impact if the accreditation that is accepted by the licensing board is an agency that limits the acknowledgement of programs which have online content. ABET suggested that the EC2000 would usher in new progress. Apparently, the progress has been minimal with the EC2000 criteria. Online undergraduate engineering educational opportunities are essentially the same as a decade ago.
The 107 th Congress during the (2D Session) introduced H.R. 5501 on September 30, 2002 with the short title of “Higher Education Accrediting Agency Responsibility Act of 2002 .” Their recommended action is indicates as follows:
“To end the virtual monopoly that today's accrediting agencies enjoy, and require them to operate in a competitive environment like any other industry.”
The Council for Higher Education Association (CHEA) summarizes the points of the bill as follows:
“Purpose of the hearing: To determine whether the assumption that accreditation provides access to a quality education is accurate and to answer the following questions: •Is there more that accreditors can do to ensure quality? • Should there be more independence in the accreditation process? •Should the Congress do more to require specific standards for accreditors?
Other issues and concerns of Members: • Cost • Pushes institutions into directions of accreditors ideological persuasion • Transfer of credit • Distance education and standards to ensure quality • How curriculum will keep pace with the changing times” (Rogers, 2002, p1) Paul Clark 06/03/14
Engineering Technology 23
Establishing a competitive environment, as suggested by H.R. 5501, is a progressive approach for the engineering technology occupation otherwise the following issues will continue.
“We are forced to listen to and adopt the ideas of ABET with regard to innovation because of the monopoly status that ABET wields… The result of the dual mission of ABET is that the accreditation process is corrupted” (Eades, 2002, p1).
Can the United States afford to wait any longer with other countries progressing with online undergraduate engineering education? Australia is a leader in distance engineering education programs. The University of Central Queensland indicates the following.
“Our programs are available completely online and are designed primarily for those already working within the industry, allowing you to up-skill and gain a quality qualification to meet your career advancement goals” (Dean, 2014, p1).
The United States must rapidly develop online undergraduate programs to compete with the existing programs of other countries.
Licensing
Currently, there are no licensing requirements for engineering technologist. Licensing criteria for occupations are addressed by specific guidelines established in the bylaws unique to the State of origin. “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” (Musselman, p1, 2013).
Jon Layman summarizes the requirements for the engineering technologist class work in the State of Indiana as follows:
“The first requirement is at least a Bachelor’s Degree from an EAC/ABET- accredited engineering program. Indiana will allow you to test to become a PE if your degree is not ABET-accredited however you must meet a few credit hour requirements. In order to qualify you must obtain 9 hours of calculus, 3 hours of advanced calculus based math, 8 hours of physical science, 12 hours of post-
Paul Clark 06/03/14
Engineering Technology 24
calculus engineering science, and 12 hours of engineering design” (Layman, 2014, p1).
The current law is presently categorized as (IC 25-31-1-12).
The educational credit hours requirements of engineering technologist for state licensing are not consistent across the nation. The required years of experience for state licensing also are not consistent. The link to the list that details the number of years required for your state license is included in the appendix.
Industrial Exemption
Engineering technologist can work as engineers in some states but the practice is limited as indicated below:
“In many states, engineers who work in industry providing engineering services are exempt from licensure requirements. Of those state licensing boards that responded to a survey by the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying, 29 licensure jurisdictions exempt employees of industrial or manufacturing firms, and 14 have no such exemption provisions. Of those states with exemptions for industrial employees, many do not enforce licensure requirements on engineers who consult to those industries later in their careers, rather than work as employee” (Musselman, 2009, p1).
A link to the list of industrial exemptions for each State can be found in the appendix.
If the industrial exemption is not applicable the engineering technologist is required to obtain a professional engineering license through the conventional means. This includes the requirement of the appropriate testing as addressed in the following quote.
“In addition, a comparison of the pass rates on the Fundamentals of Engineering exam between engineering and engineering t echnology graduates indicates that technology graduates have a significantly more difficult time with the exam than do engineering graduates” (NSPE 2014, p1).
Paul Clark 06/03/14
Engineering Technology 25
Exam difficulties for engineering technologists may result from being trained to satisfy an unacknowledged occupational distinction. With the licensing criteria removed, asking an engineering technologist to take an exam for traditional engineering maybe equivalent to asking a paleontologist to take an exam for archeology. They are acquainted scientific fields but each is a specialty occupation under anthropology. A separate Professional Engineering Technology exam should be created to test the individual applicant with this focus.
“NSPE opposes efforts to establish legal competency criteria for engineering technicians and technologists. However, NSPE supports the establishment of recognized levels of competence for technicians and technologists, and has sponsored the National Institute for Certification in Engineering Technologies with this interest in mind.” (NSPE, 2014)
Is the establishment of a certification program a suitable trade for the opposition of legal recognition of engineering technologist? The Comparative Database (Mapping the World of Education) establishes certifications at Level 50.
Level 50 - “Postsecondary Programs and Awards of No More Than 2 Years. Programs and awards that are designed to represent no more than 2 years of study; constitute postsecondary education as operationally defined in CIDS; and are not second (graduate-level) programs and awards” (USDOE & NSF,1996,Vol. 1, Sec, 1, p 30).
Paul Clark 06/03/14
Engineering Technology 26
The establishment of a certification program is therefore not of parity academic value to an individual that has achieved the baccalaureate distinction which is ranked at Level 60 as previously determined. This highlights the reason why many engineering technologists do not get certified. They don’t become certified because they have already achieved a higher distinction with their baccalaureate diploma.
The problem with many certification programs is that they are regulated by private organization(s) and they can be easily discounted by employers because they have varying degrees of quality. The following engineering technologist certification programs all have different criteria for recognition.
o The Society of Broadcast Engineers (SBE), o The Society of Manufacturing Engineers (SME), o The Association of Technology, Management, and Applied Engineering (ATMAE), o The National Institute for Certification in Engineering Technologies (NICET) o American Society of Certified Electronic Technicians (ASCET)
The sister organization to NICET is ASCET. ASCET does have a good list of recognized certification bodies but currently only establishes members with the Technician distinction (ASCET, 2014). NICET reserves the title of Technologist to be achieve by ABET/TAC graduates.
“Technologist certification requires a 4-year engineering technology degree (no testing required), and at the advanced level, documentation including a work history and endorsements” (NICET, 2014, p1).
No equivalency testing is offered for those that obtained education outside of the ABET approved curriculum to establish equivalent standing as a technologist within NICET. The NICET Engineering Technologist Certification is therefore limited access. If you are able to join then you have already established credentials.
Could Any of These Famous Engineering Technologists Be Registered as Professional Engineers Today?
If Thomas Edison, Nikola Tesla , Henry Ford, Westinghouse, and the Wright Brothers were alive today would they be allowed to register as Professional Engineers?
• “Thomas Edison’s education was achieved through occasional visits to The Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art and took classes in Chemistry.” (Topper, R., 2014). “He did not achieve a degree and he was considered self-educated” (J., Powell, 2014, p1). • ‘Nicola Tesla completes "Lower" or "Primary" School and then attends "Lower Real Gymnasium" or "Normal School" followed then by the "Real Gymnasium.’
Paul Clark 06/03/14
Engineering Technology 27
September, 1875: Tesla attended College In Graz. Near the end of the third year, Tesla stopped attending lectures and dropped out the following year. (Tesla University, 2014, p1). • “Westinghouse attended Union College for three months and dropped out.” (F.,Schmitt, Jan. 2013, p1). • “The Wright Brothers formal education ended with graduation from high school.” (Allstar Network, 1995-2014, p1). • Henry Ford – “He attended school until the age of fifteen, at which time he developed a dislike of farm life and a fascination for machinery” (World Biography, 2014, p1).
It is clear that none of the famous inventors listed above would have the appropriate formal education to register as professional engineers just as the engineering technologist of today in some states. How might this issue have affected the course of humanity if they had to register as professional engineers in their time? Would George Westinghouse Jr. or Thomas Edison have been able to offer competing electrical distribution system to the people of the United States under the industrial exemption clause today?
Westinghouse bought Nicola Tesla’s patents for AC power distribution concepts. Westinghouse built the first AC electrical distribution system in New York that stretched from Niagara Falls to Buffalo New York. (King, G. Oct., 2011). The industrial exemption NSPE chart for the State of New York reveals that Public Utilities are not allowed an industrial exemption (Industrial Exemption Task Force, 2012, p2).
Would the work of Thomas Edison and Westinghouse be considered an unlicensed practice? Unlicensed engineering practice is the defined as the following by the General Assembly of Illinois PROFESSIONS, OCCUPATIONS, AND BUSINESS OPERATIONS (225 ILCS 325/) Professional Engineering Practice Act of 1989.
“The restrictions of work that all non-professional engineers encounter are summarized as follows: (o) "Professional engineering practice" means the consultation on, conception, investigation, evaluation, planning, and design of, and selection of materials to be used in, administration of construction contracts for, or site observation of, an engineering system or facility, where such consultation, conception, investigation, evaluation, planning, design, selection, administration, or observation requires extensive knowledge of engineering laws, formulae, materials, practice, and construction methods. A person shall be construed to practice or offer to practice professional engineering, within the meaning and intent of this Act, who practices, or who, by verbal claim, sign, advertisement, letterhead, card, or any other way, is represented to be a professional engineer, or through the use of the initials "P.E." or the title "engineer" or any of its derivations or some other title implies licensure as a
Paul Clark 06/03/14
Engineering Technology 28
professional engineer, or holds himself out as able to perform any service which is recognized as professional engineering practice.
Examples of the practice of professional engineering include, but need not be limited to, transportation facilities and publicly owned utilities for a region or community, railroads, railways, highways, subways, canals, harbors, river improvements; land development; stormwater detention, retention, and conveyance, excluding structures defined under Section 5 of the Structural Engineering Practice Act of 1989 (225 ILCS 340/5); irrigation works; aircraft and airports; traffic engineering; waterworks, piping systems, sewers, sewage disposal works, storm sewer, sanitary sewer and water system modeling; plants for the generation of power; devices for the utilization of power; boilers; refrigeration plants, air conditioning systems and plants; heating systems and plants; plants for the transmission or distribution of power; electrical plants which produce, transmit, distribute, or utilize electrical energy; works for the extraction of minerals from the earth; plants for the refining, alloying or treating of metals; chemical works and industrial plants involving the use of chemicals and chemical processes; plants for the production, conversion, or utilization of nuclear, chemical, or radiant energy; forensic engineering, geotechnical engineering including, subsurface investigations; soil and rock classification, geology and geohydrology, incidental to the practice of professional engineering; geohydrological investigations, migration pathway analysis (including evaluation of building and site elements), soil and groundwater management zone analysis and design; energy analysis, environmental risk assessments, corrective action plans, design, remediation, protection plans and systems, hazardous waste mitigation and control, and environmental control or remediation systems; recognition, measurement, evaluation and control of environmental systems and emissions; control systems, evaluation and design of engineered barriers, excluding structures defined under Section 5 of the Structural Engineering Practice Act of 1989 (225 ILCS 340/5); modeling of pollutants in water, soil, and air; engineering surveys of sites, facilities, and topography specific to a design project, not including land boundary establishment; automated building management systems; control or remediation systems; computer controlled or integrated systems; automatic fire notification and suppression systems; investigation and assessment of indoor air inhalation exposures and design of abatement and remediation systems; or the provision of professional engineering site observation of the construction of works and engineering systems. In the performance of any of the foregoing functions, a licensee shall adhere to the standards of professional conduct enumerated in 68 Ill. Adm. Code 1380.300. Nothing contained in this Section imposes upon a person licensed under this Act the responsibility for the performance of any of the foregoing functions unless
Paul Clark 06/03/14
Engineering Technology 29
such person specifically contracts to provide it. Nothing in this Section shall preclude an employee from acting under the direct supervision or responsible charge of a licensed professional engineer.”
The NSPE indicates the following:
“Types and Evidence of Unlicensed Practice or Offers to Practice Engineering There are many different examples of unlicensed individuals who may inappropriately practice, or offer to practice, engineering, including: • Professional engineers who are not licensed in the jurisdiction or whose license has lapsed; • Members of other professions (i.e., architects, landscape architects, surveyors, geologists, and many others. Note that the established boundaries between practices vary considerably by jurisdiction, if such boundaries have been established); • Unlicensed engineers; and • Non-professionals.
Unlicensed practice, or offers to practice, engineering may be evidenced in a variety of different ways, such as:
• Correspondence, reports, or plans comprising the practice of engineering; • Public presentations by individuals who are unlicensed in the jurisdiction; • Engineering proposals; • Court appearances as expert witnesses by individuals who are unlicensed in the jurisdiction (although courts in some jurisdictions have the ability to allow unlicensed engineers to present expert testimony); • Verbal or written offers to provide engineering services; • Advertisements; • Use of the PE designation by unlicensed individuals; and • Use of someone else’s PE stamp (in some actual instances, use of a PE stamp of an engineer who has passed away)” (Musselman, 2013, p1).
It is clear that Westinghouse and Thomas Edison would have been operating under the criteria that is considered to be an unlicensed practice today. The Westinghouse AC system allowed the United States to participate in the Industrial Revolution (About, 2014, p1). Should we gamble on living without the concepts that are conceived by the engineering technologist because they don’t have the professional engineering credentials to directly service the public?
Some individuals might conclude that it is beneficial for the economy to hire a professional engineer to represent them. A garage start-up would be strained to support a professional engineer’s salary. The Westinghouse Corporation was not a garage start-up but history shows us there are plenty of other examples that would have been strained with hiring a professional engineer in their infancy. If the product is truly a pioneering innovation then the expertise would
Paul Clark 06/03/14
Engineering Technology 30
be exclusive to those that are conducting the specific research. To bring a professional engineer on the payroll that may or may not be acquainted with the invention might siphon the limited capital required to launch the product.
How do we bring pioneering products to the public if self-taught innovators are the source and they are restricted by licensing laws? Will we force all of them to sell their ideas to a buyers (or Sharks) that could potentially claim they thought of the concept first by creating a slightly altered copy?
One way to streamline the flow of innovative products to the consumer market is to establish a pioneering field exemption . This would be another type of industrial exemption used in State licensing. It would bring new products that are ground-breaking to the market place. The products would still be required to pass the standards product regulations. A pioneering field exemption would cover those that were developing new advancements in technology.
Another option would be to allow engineering technologists to work with legal distinction in the United States as incorporated engineers do in the United Kingdom. A licensing test that was tailored specifically to engineering technologist would be appropriate. If this option is chosen it is imperative that it would be open to all valid accreditations that are recognized by CHEA or the US Department of Education. Licensing criteria should be revised for outcome assessment of individuals and not contingent with accreditation affiliation.
Safety
The issue of safety is cited as the primary reason to centralize exclusive control of engineering with the practice of professional engineers. The NSPE has indicated the following argument.
“Licensed professional engineers are obligated to practice ethically and to hold paramount the protection of public health, safety and welfare. Unlicensed engineers are only accountable under the provisions of general law, which are far less specific and less restrictive than engineering licensure requirements. Engineers practicing in a manner that potentially impacts public health, safety, and welfare should be licensed professional engineers, and there is no rationale that it is in the public interest for engineers in industry to be exempt from these requirements. The Gulf oil disaster is an excellent case in point” (Carter, J., May, 2012, p1).
The NSPE supports Carter’s article by indicating the following:
Paul Clark 06/03/14
Engineering Technology 31
“NSPE recommends the phasing out of existing industrial exemptions in state licensing laws” (Musselman, 2013, P1).
Carter advocates that the case of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is a solid reason to remove the industrial exemption clause from the bylaws of State licensing. A code of conduct is cited by Carter as one of the reasons that infuse safe practice responsibilities within professional engineers. The code of conduct is not exclusive to professional engineers in the United States. Many societies have codes of conduct commitments for engineering technologist including the Society of Broadcast Engineers, the Society of Manufacturing Engineers, and many others.
Technicians and technologist abide by a code of conduct all over the world. The Institution of Incorporated Engineers (IIE) was an excellent example of engineering technologist operating with a code of conduct.
“The IIE joined with the IEE in March 2006 to form the IET.” (IET, 2014, p1).
It is appropriate to consider the incident at Three Mile Island. The following article from the Institute of Education Sciences entitled “Good Engineering + Poor Communication = Three Mile Island” is a good example of how well traditional engineers communicate.
“The accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant resulted from a communications failure . The accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant resulted from a communication failure. Following an incident at an Ohio plant a year and a half earlier, B. M. Dunn, manager of Emergency Core Cooling Systems Analysis at Babcock and Wilcox (engineers), wrote a memorandum making specific recommendations on written instructions for nuclear plant operating procedures. F. Walters, a member of the Plant Performance Services staff, still had concerns about the recommendations and did not forward them to the utilities concerned. While Walters investigated these concerns, the accident at Three Mile Island occurred. Shortly thereafter, the Operating Plant Services division of Babcock and Wilcox issued "supplementary operating instructions" to the utilities, which were almost identical to Dunn's recommendations. Although both the content of the memo and Dunn's managerial rank should have ensured compliance with the memo, the primary communication context set up by Dunn was inconsistent with the actual decision making process for his recommendations. The memo was sent to the wrong audience and was written in such a way as to preclude action. To a significant extent, the lack of effective response to his memorandum can be traced to his misinterpretation of the audiences for the memorandum. The resulting accident suggests that, no matter how good the engineering, it is not finished until organizations make decisions
Paul Clark 06/03/14
Engineering Technology 32
and take action. This requires effective communication (HTH).” (Mathes, 1984, p23).
In the Three Mile Island example poor communication was referenced as the primary reason for the safety failures and not the failure of the engineers to apply advanced mathematic principles or the failure to conform to a code of conduct. Should the focus on communication be promoted as a more important safety principal within the traditional engineering curriculum? This circumstance represents that the enhanced communications curriculum of applied engineering technology programs in some cases might have an advantage over traditional engineering in protect public safety.
How was the threshold of an ABET/EAC BS degree determined to be the benchmark education level that bestowed safe practice? Does advanced mathematics of Laplace transform impart responsible behavior and ethical conviction to perform due diligence in design?
A significant threat to the safety of society is that traditional engineers and engineering technologists are pressured to produce designs with the expectation that designs can be produced like fast food. Managers are under pressure from shareholders to produce profits and engineers have a limited window to accommodate the expectations. Fast food engineering is a concern of greater consequence.
Tools & Techniques
The difference in mathematics between the engineering and engineering technology programs is less of a concern in modern engineering because computer software is used to test design concepts. It is essential for a designer to know how to operate modern software to proof a safe design. The Sydney Opera House is one example of a design that was built with the aid of engineering software. Engineering technologists have a high exposure to a variety of engineering software applications.
“Design of the Opera House began in the 1950s. Ove Arup was engaged early in the design, and began to turn a daring concept into a physical reality. Arup’s engineers confronted an engineering challenge that has since become one of the profession’s epic tales - the design and construction of the building’s enormous, pre-cast concrete shells. The complex design work for the shells was achieved through the pioneering use of computers to model the roof and analyze its structure” (Arup, 2014, p1).
Paul Clark 06/03/14
Engineering Technology 33
Examples of software used at various engineering firms.
• MatLab - “MathWorks MATLAB is an integrated development environment and computer language that enables users to perform computationally intensive tasks. The software is used for numerical computation tasks, visualization, and mathematical programming” (Purdue, 2014, p1) • Computer-aided design (CAD) – “Computer aided design (CAD) software refers to programs that provide tools for producing two- and three- dimensional graphics. These graphics are usually used as schematics and blueprints for constructing physical objects, such as houses, boats, electrical circuits and retail product packages. These graphics can also depict virtual objects that exist solely in software, used by artists and designers to create imaginary creatures, sets and whole worlds that aren't necessarily bound to the physical laws of our world” (Koltow, 2014, p1). • Primavera – “Primavera Systems Inc. provides project and program management software for the Architecture, Engineering and Construction industry. Focused on project portfolio management, or PPM, Primavera's solutions let user’s measure progress, assure governance, improve team collaboration and prioritize project investments and resources.” (TechTarget, 1999-2014, p1).
This list is not conclusive. There are many more software programs that are available.
International Definition & Registration Criteria
There are two international agreements that define and recognize engineering technologist.
• The Sydney Accord • The Engineering Technology Mobility Forum
The mutual recognition of engineering technology as “substantial equivalent” is established by the signatories’ countries. The status of substantially equivalent does not define a perfect analog but it does imply that Engineering Technologist should have similar occupational roles and stature around the world. The ETMF has developed a constitution for engineering technologist.
An introduction for the constitution is as follows.
“For the purposes of this Constitution, and any future Rules and Procedures made under this Constitution, engineering technology academic programs are defined as the programs through which practitioners normally satisfy the academic requirements for the engineering roles currently known amongst the initial signatories as:
• Certified Engineering or Applied Science Technologist Canada • Associate Member of the Hong Kong Institution of Engineers Hong Kong China • Associate Engineer Ireland
Paul Clark 06/03/14
Engineering Technology 34
• Technical Member New Zealand • Professional Engineering Technologist South Africa” • Incorporated Engineer United Kingdom
The term "engineering technologist" is used throughout this Constitution to refer to practitioners engaged in any or all of the above roles” (ETMF, 2014, p2)
The Constitution defines Substantially Equivalent as follows:
“Substantially Equivalent Academic Qualification” means an academic qualification which is not an Accredited Engineering Technology Programme, but which has been assessed and recognized as substantially equivalent to such by the relevant responsible authority in the Home Economy” (ETMF, 2014, p1).
The Canadian technologist registration includes applied science curriculum. “A professional, who through academic training and experience in the application of engineering or scientific principles, is capable of assuming responsibility and exercising independent judgment in the practice of engineering or applied science technology” (OACETT, p1. 2015).
United Kingdom Engineering
The United Kingdom defines the role of an incorporated engineer as the following:
Incorporated Engineer (IEng) “Incorporated Engineers often work in operational roles, maintaining and managing applications of today’s technology at the highest efficiency. As an Incorporated Engineer you need a thorough and detailed understanding of technology in order to exercise independent judgment and management on a professional basis” (IME, 2014, p1).
“Incorporated Engineers are registered at the final stage in the professional engineering section of the Engineering Council Register” as indicated by (Statutory Instrument 2005 No. 18). (UKLaw, 2008, p1)
The concept of the incorporated engineer is not new. Incorporated engineers in the United Kingdom have been operating for many years autonomously. The charter engineer is the analogue to that of a professional engineer as declared by the Washington Accord.
Incorporated engineers are acknowledged under European Directive 2005/36/EC with the designated title of “Engineer.” (European Commission, 2014, p1).
Paul Clark 06/03/14
Engineering Technology 35
“Registration as an incorporated engineer is a professional qualification, and is comparable to that of a person licensed to practice engineering in the United State” (AACRAO, 2006, p2).
Incorporated engineers are able to apply for the International Engineering Technologists (IntET) title.
“The criteria upon which registration is based are as follows; the applicant must be registered in a signatory jurisdiction have an academic qualification equivalent to an engineering technology degree/diploma/certificate have seven years post- graduation experience have two years in responsible charge of engineering work be maintaining continuing professional development” (Engineering Council, 2014, p1).
Lisbon Convention is the Recognition of Qualifications concerning Higher Education
The Treaty of Lisbon is an international mutual recognition agreement signed by the United States in 1997. (UNESCO, 2001, p1). The treaty agreement is vast but the fundamental considerations are as follows:
• “Considering that the recognition of studies, certificates, diplomas and degrees obtained in another country of the European region represents an important measure for promoting academic mobility between the Parties;” • “To the extent that a recognition decision is based on the knowledge and skills certified by the higher education qualification, each Party shall recognize the higher education qualifications conferred in another Party, unless a substantial difference can be shown between the qualification for which recognition is sought and the corresponding qualification in the Party in which recognition is sought” (Council of Europe, 1997, p1).
The Multiple Level Engineering System
The following article excerpts support the author’s view that the United States should adopt the United Kingdom three tier engineering model. The following discussion from Craig Musselman’s article, “ Would Two Levels of Engineering Licensure Work in the U.S.? ” is presented for consideration as follows:
“In the U.K., these are titles only, and there are no regulatory practice implications applicable to the titles. The U.S. licensure system is more complex because of practice implications.
As we raise the bar regarding qualifications for professional engineers in the U.S., perhaps we ought to consider multiple levels of licensure, as they have in the U.K. The title of a new level is sensitive, important, and likely controversial. “Incorporated engineer” probably wouldn’t be the correct term in the U.S. Maybe we could dust off the old title of “registered engineer,” although this would be
Paul Clark 06/03/14
Engineering Technology 36
controversial because to some engineers “registered engineer” is synonymous with licensed professional engineer, and some states still use the term. For discussion purposes, let’s call it an “associate engineer.” Whatever the title, perhaps a new level of licensure could apply to those with a B.S. in Engineering from an ABET-EAC accredited program (plus FE and PE exams and progressive engineering experience). Such individuals could have limited practice rights that would be specified for “associate engineers” in contrast to “professional engineers,” or alternatively, could be required to practice under the responsible charge of a professional engineer in all respects. Adding technologists to this concept in the U.S. would address another set of unresolved issues in our licensure system but would add another level of complexity to delineating practice rights and responsibilities” (Musselman, 2012, p1).
Self -Taught Innovators
Currently, the United States lacks programs that would allow the self-taught innovators of today the option to advance in engineering stature unless they took proctored exams of each class required at a local college or university. They could also go back to school and suspend their ambition to produce innovative products.
The United Kingdom has a distinct advantage in this area with competency based assessments. The City and Guilds of London Institutes offers apprenticeship programs that provide a good model for consideration. The City & Guilds system has a very progressive program that could allow non-traditional students an avenue to develop. (City & Guilds, 2014, p1).
The competency based programs have significant merit. They allow a non-traditional progression for individuals to establish the status of Technician, Incorporated Engineer, and Charter Engineer. This correlates to the Technician, Engineer Technologist, and Professional Engineer in the United States.
Inequality Concern Issues
Many families and individuals struggle with the increased costs of tuition and other expenses associated with education. The traditional student that has wealthy parents can afford to send their kid(s) to college and they can stay on campus so that they can attend traditional engineering classes. They are not impacted. It is the stay at home moms and the blue collar worker that is unable to attend traditional classes that is influenced.
“The new reality of higher education contains a fundamental shift in student demographics. More non-traditional students are seeking educational opportunities and traditional students are seeking out and expecting alternative modes of curriculum delivery. Students, especially older, non-traditional ones seek course delivery through distance education formats such as online or videoconferencing that meet the needs of their lifestyle that includes career, family and other responsibilities. As a result, Universities are moving to meet the
Paul Clark 06/03/14
Engineering Technology 37
needs of this growing contingency of new atypical student populations” (Schuhmann, R. & Skopek, T, 2008, p1).
Technology programs appeal to this atypical segment. Students frequently default to this alternate engineering path due to restrictions in their inability to attend the traditional ABET/EAC programs. Online engineering education is needed today.
The Students occasionally realize while they are attending classes in a technology curriculum that the traditional engineering program is more advantageous to their future career objectives. The student reviews the credit hour requirements of what they have completed in the engineering technology curriculum and compares it to what is necessary to redirect their education to the traditional engineering route. They quickly realize that many of their science classes are not calculus based and they will need to take the classes again to satisfy the calculus component. In addition, they find that it is necessary to add classes that are not a part of technology curriculum. It is commonly realized that redirecting their education from the technology curriculum to the traditional engineering path is cost and time prohibitive. Recent program developments are improving the options for a streamlined transition for students from community college programs to four year universities but the selection is still weak.
“Community colleges offer curriculums that are similar to those in technical institutes, but that may include more theory and liberal arts. There may be little or no difference between programs at technical institutes and community colleges, as both offer associate degrees. After completing the 2-year program, some graduates get jobs as engineering technologists, while others continue their education at 4-year colleges. However, there is a difference between an associate degree in pre-engineering and one in engineering technology. Students who enroll in a 2-year pre-engineering program may find it very difficult to find work as an engineering technician should they decide not to enter a 4-year engineering program, because pre-engineering programs usually focus less on hands-on applications and more on academic preparatory work. Conversely, graduates of 2- year engineering technology programs may not receive credit for some of the courses they have taken if they choose to transfer to a 4-year engineering program. Colleges with these 4-year programs usually do not offer engineering technician training, but college courses in science, engineering, and mathematics are useful for obtaining a job as an engineering technician. Many 4-year colleges offer bachelor’s degrees in engineering technology, but graduates of these programs often are hired to work as technologists or applied engineers, not technologists. (Sloan, p5. 2015)
The Milwaukee School of Engineering offers an electrical engineering AAS-EET to BSEE transfer plan. It is estimated that this program will allow the student to achieve a BSEE with approximately 184 credit hours. Purdue University offers a dual degree program with the completion of approximately 172 credit hours to achieve BSEE/MBA program (Purdue, p1, 2015). The Purdue BSEE is offer with approximately 125 credit hours (Purdue NC, p1, 2015).
Paul Clark 06/03/14
Engineering Technology 38
The professional licensing laws favor traditional engineering education from ABET/EAC programs (NCEES, 2014, p1). In some states the engineering technology students must traverse significant barriers to be able to sit for the licensing exams. In the states that require engineering technologist to achieve additional credit hours of training (beyond their Baccalaureate degree) the cost to train for a license can be a significant financial burden.
The article written by Ronald E. Land entitled, “ Engineering Technologists Are Engineers ” has some interesting statements. The following statement should be considered:
“Finally there are hints in these results that relate to the importance of professional registration to some engineering roles. That raises the question of whether removing the existing barriers to professional registration for engineering technology graduates would enhance the engineering workforce of U.S. Industries” (Land, 2012, p39).
The limited access to low costs engineering licensing training is a concern. At what point do the increased costs of traditional engineering education and the prospect of achieving a professional engineering license move out of the reach of the average household? The proposed removal of the industrial exemption will force the consideration in this matter for potential engineering technology students and their parents. The glass ceiling of this phantom occupation is being lowered and the costs to break the glass are increasing. Does the increase in engineering training costs mean that the privileges granted to professional engineers will be the exclusive advantage of the rich?
If it isn’t an exclusive privilege of the rich now it might be in the future. The current proposal is to raise the requirement for a professional engineer to a Master’s Degree. The Model Law 2020 is expected to raise the bar yet again for engineering licensing as indicated by the following.
“In 2006, NCEES adopted modifications to its Model Law encouraging jurisdictions to consider revisions after 2020 to require additional engineering education as a prerequisite for licensure as a professional engineer. This has been termed “master’s or equivalent,” and includes pathways deemed equivalent: 1) a baccalaureate engineering degree from a program accredited by ABET EAC (Engineering Accreditation Commission) plus a master’s degree in engineering from an institution that offers ABET EAC programs; 2) a master’s degree from a program accredited by ABET EAC; 3) a baccalaureate degree in engineering from an ABET EAC accredited program that requires 150 credit hours or more, or 4) a baccalaureate degree in engineering from an ABET EAC accredited program plus 30 credit hours of additional upper level undergraduate or graduate level coursework” (Musselman, 2014, p1).
The general consensus of the state licensing bylaws is influenced by organizations and societies that are consider national authorities. The United States one-size-fits-all characterization of engineering is influenced by the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) as noted in the following paragraph.
Paul Clark 06/03/14
Engineering Technology 39
“Proponents of PE licensure for engineering technologists argue that, for purposes of licensure, the engineering technology program provides a substantially equivalent education to the engineering program. They argue the prohibition on PE licensure for technologists unduly restricts otherwise qualified individuals from seeking licensure. Proponents also point out that because over half of the states permit technology graduates to become licensed; those states that prohibit such licensure are essentially depriving their citizens of economic and professional opportunities in their home states.”
“This distinction between engineering and engineering technology is acknowledged in several ways. For example, ABET establishes separate accreditation criteria for each program. The criteria prohibits an accredited engineering technology program from claiming that it gives its graduates the equivalent of an engineering education” (NSPE, 2014, p1).
The accreditations are separated to prevent one group (engineering technologist) from claiming equivalent standing with traditional engineers when they both have equal academic standing which is evident by the level 60 designation for their respective programs. ( See Mapping The World of Education Database for the United State academia.)
The engineering technologist program in the United States is an altered version of the traditional engineering path which doesn’t have the qualities to be directly recognized for equal academic standing with some state licensing boards but it is close enough in comparison that historically it does not have the distinction to be acknowledged as a separate occupational field. When both of these conditions occur simultaneously it increases the likelihood that the engineering technologists will be placed in a subordinate or adjunct position unless they can convert their career path to match the traditional engineering route or another recognized occupation.
Unfortunately, the conversion process has significant burdens in financial, time, and academic commitments in the states that do not allow direct recognition of Engineering Technology Degrees for professional licensing. Their potential to contribute directly to public innovation as professional engineers is therefore diluted for the engineering technologist. When the conversion process is similar or equivalent in burden to the training required to switch occupations the likelihood that an individual will leave the engineering field is increased.
Many Professional Engineering licensing structures could improve participation by addressing the following:
• Full ABET/EAC Bachelor level programs are offered with sparse access. Distance education options should be increased and course offerings should be provided during off business hours for working class adults.
• Community college transfer options should be improved through articulation agreements with four year universities (ASEET to BSEE).
Paul Clark 06/03/14
Engineering Technology 40
• Engineering technology course credits should have direct recognition with license bodies that bestow autonomous engineering practice and privileges. Supplemental course requirements should be removed or reduced substantially.
Dr. Wulf from the National Academy of Engineering said it best with the following quote.
“The diversity of the engineering workforce is a business imperative. The strength of this workforce depends on the availability of talented, well-educated young people available to fill jobs. The quality of the work produced by the workforce depends on the variety of perspectives and life experiences brought to the job by its members. Without diversity, we limit the set of life experiences that are applied, and as result, we pay an opportunity cost--a cost in products not built, in designs not considered, in constraints not understood, and in processes not invented” (Wulf, 1999, p1).
Paul Clark 06/03/14
Engineering Technology 41
Conclusions
Engineering technology is an occupation that has been acknowledged internationally on the Sydney Accord and by the Engineering Technology Mobility Forum. The Charter/Professional Engineer is a separate distinction that is acknowledged internationally on the Washington Accord.
1. The industrial exemption clause allows engineering technologist to work as manufacturing engineers in many states. Additional exemptions are granted on a state by state basis. Engineering roles and occupations for engineering technologist will therefore vary on a state by state basis. 2. The United States has a significant bottleneck with undergraduate online engineering. Australia and other countries are not bound by an undergraduate online bottleneck and they have successfully advanced the aptitude and training of their citizens in engineering. 3. The US Department of Education no longer has direct oversight with specialty accreditations. It is suggested that one way to reign in specialty accreditations is through market competition. There is no incentive for an accreditation to adapt if the competition is minimal. 4. Employers are recruiting international engineers to satisfy the demand in United States. 5. The occupation for engineering technologist has already been created internationally. The United States can ignore the international model at its own peril. 6. International recognition of engineering technologist includes graduates from applied science programs. 7. The NSPE definition of an engineering technologist is in conflict with the international definition in two ways. • The NSPE indicates that “Engineering technology programs prepare their graduates to apply others' designs” (NSPE, 2014, p1). The ETMF Constitution contradicts this assertion by indicating that an “Applicant may be taken to have been in responsible charge of significant engineering work when they have planned, designed , coordinated and executed a small project…” (ETMF Forum, 2014, p6). • The ETMF Constitution indicates, “The work should have required the exercise of independent engineering judgment” (ETMF Forum, 2014, p6). It is key to note the engineering technologist work as independent engineers and not under traditional engineers in the international definition. The international Engineering Technologist is therefore an autonomous distinction as opposed to the assistant engineering role commonly espoused by the United States definitions. 8. Famous engineer technologists such as Westinghouse, The Wright Brothers, Thomas Edison, and Henry Ford would not be able to register as a Professional Engineer today with the education they received in their lifetime. History has shown us that many pioneering innovators do not fall into the conventions of our current licensing, education,
Paul Clark 06/03/14
Engineering Technology 42
and occupational structures. Restricting innovators to those structures without reasonable options to satisfy their limited criteria will surely jeopardize the evolution of our culture. 9. The legal registration process for engineering technologist has been influenced by a powerful society. Replacing licensing with a segmented certification process of competing ideologies. 10. Certification programs do not provide adequate distinction for engineering technologist because they are easily dismissed for quality reasons. Their academic distinction is below the stature of the achieved baccalaureate prominence. 11. The absence of recognition for engineering technology as an independent title SOC classification through the U.S. Department of Labor has numerous outcomes. The US Department of Labor classifications are used by many human resources departments to establish corporate structures and wage levels. Engineering technologists are seldom employed with the specific “Engineering Technology” title because of this USDL classification void. The missing rung on the engineer career ladder is effectively pulling the carpet out from technologist. 12. The international description of engineering technologist as an autonomous career has often been overlooked within the United States. The one size fits all legal engineering distinction in the United States. Applied engineering is not given distinction as a specialized branch as Incorporated Engineers are addressed in the United Kingdom. 13. The United States would benefit from an apprenticeship/vocational program such as the example provided by The City & Guilds of London Institute. 14. Engineering technologists are occasionally subjugated to the level of technician in organizations effectively reducing the salaries of the individuals. When this occurs it nullifies the junior and senior years of academia and the individuals are left with student loan payments that command a higher percentage of their paycheck. The individuals are paid at the Associate Degree level rather than if they have achieved a Baccalaureate Degree. 15. The ABET accreditation has many good ideas but they are not the only relevant ideas in academia as noted by Alwyn Eades Professor of Materials Science and Engineering at Lehigh University. 16. Many registered engineering technologists abide by a code of conduct. A code of conduct is not exclusive to United States Professional Engineers. 17. Incorporated engineers are acknowledged under European Directive 2005/36/EC with the designated title of “Engineer.” (European Commission, 2014). 18. Restricting online undergraduate engineering education limits the opportunity options for educational advancement for the citizens of the United States. 19. It is suggested that the United States should adopt the international definition of engineering technologist and embrace the autonomous standing of the occupation. 20. The engineering technologist program in the United States is an altered version of the traditional engineering path which doesn’t have the qualities to be directly recognized for equal academic standing with some state licensing boards but it is close enough in comparison that historically it does not have the distinction to be acknowledged as a separate occupational field. When both of these conditions occur simultaneously it increases the likelihood that the engineering technologists will be placed in a subordinate or adjunct position unless they can convert their career path to match the traditional engineering route or another recognized occupation.
Paul Clark 06/03/14
Engineering Technology 43
Recommended Actions
• It is recommended that an engineering technologist occupational distinction should be made to eliminate the likelihood that the condition of subordination or inequality will occur in the workforce. • It is recommended that the engineering technologist occupational distinction should be made to encourage participation in engineering related fields. • It is recommended that the engineering technologist occupational distinction should be made to discourage individuals from switching careers to participate in a recognized occupation. • It is recommended that an engineering technologist occupational distinction should be made to address the unique function of an engineering technologist as practical engineers. The application of scientific discovery through the practical means of investigation allows the engineering technologist to be pioneers in their fields. They improve design function and production methods. Their ability to communicate well allows them to function as mediators, leaders, and organizers of complex applications and technical tasks. • The United States engineering technologist occupational distinction should adopt the international definition of an engineering technologist. Adopting the international definition will encourage international mobility of engineering technologists. Furthermore, it will improve mutual recognition with the participants of the Lisbon, ETMF, and the Sydney Accord agreements. • The engineering technologist occupational distinction should include the autonomous occupational function and designer duties that the international definition requires. • The occupational description should support competitive accreditation programs that are acknowledged by the US Department of Education or CHEA. • The engineering technologist occupational description should encourage apprenticeships and vocational programs to allow advancement opportunities for self-taught innovators. • It is suggested that engineering technologist occupational stewards should guard against title changes to prevent the application of inequality labels for engineering technologist. • The engineering technologist occupational description should encourage undergraduate online engineering programs and incorporate the international advantages of foreign programs that have proven to be successful. • The United States professional licensing criteria should be expanded to allow direct recognition of the engineering technology and applied science occupations. This option is desirable over the alternative of importing foreign engineers from nations with occupational qualifications analogous to engineering technology and applied science curriculums of the United States. The expanded licensing should confer analogous occupational authorities that have historically been exclusive to Professional Engineers. The expanded authorities are necessary to allow direct public contributions of innovations, designs, and conception to benefit society and to unshackle our great nation from legislations that inhibits full participation in the global economy. The license should also include the penalties for irresponsible work and obligations that accompanies the authorities. Products must conform to all pertinent codes and compliance requirements.
Paul Clark 06/03/14
Engineering Technology 44
References
Engineering Technology Mobility Forum (June, 2014). The ETMF Constitution. Retrieved on June 16, 2014, from http://www.ieagreements.org/ETMF/ETMF-Constitution.pdf
UNC Charlotte. (2014). Engineering vs Engineering Technology. The University of North Carolina at Charlotte, William States Lee College of Engineering, P1 Retrieved on June 15, 2014 from http://engr.uncc.edu/prospective-students/new-freshmen-students/engineering-vs-engineering- technology
ASEE. (2014). Definition of Engineering. American Society for Engineering Education, Engineering Technology Leadership Institute (ETLI), Retrieved on June 16, 2014, from http://www.sinclair.edu/academics/sme/pub/etli/def_eng_tech.htm
Education Portal (2014). Electronic Technology Degree, Training and Diploma Program Information., Glossary of Career Education Programs, p1 Retrieved June 15, 2014 from http://education- portal.com/articles/Electronic_Technology_Degree_Training_and_Diploma_Program_Informati on.html
OPM. (May 2007).Technical Work in Engineering and Architecture Group, Engineering Technical 0802. (Page 10). The U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Main Policy Classification & Qualifications Classifying General Schedule Positions. http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/classification-qualifications/classifying-general- schedule-positions/standards/0800/gs0800t.pdf
Zirbel, Jay H. (1993). Determination of Tasks Required by Graduates of Manufacturing Engineering Technology Programs. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, v31 n1 p23-33 Fall 1993, ERIC Number: EJ473862 Retrieved on June 23, 2014 from http://eric.ed.gov/?q=Engineering+technologist&id=EJ473862
Paul Clark 06/03/14
Engineering Technology 45
Smith, R. (2-19-2013). Engineering. Retrieved from Britannica Encyclopedia on June 17, 2014 from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/187549/engineering
Julita. (Sept. 6, 2011) Difference Between Technician and Technologist. Technician vs Technologist Retrieved from The Difference Between website on June 11, 2014 from http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/difference-between-technician-and- technologist/
John Kibilko. (1999-2014). Engineering Technologist Careers. Demand Media, Inc., eHow, Business Human Resources Employee Training Engineering Technologist Careers http://www.ehow.com/info_7858213_engineering-technologist-careers.html
O*NET (2014) 17-3023.01 - Electronics Engineering Technicians O*net Online, American Job Center, Retrieved on June 15, 2014 from http://www.mynextmove.org/vets/profile/summary/17-3023.01
JCTC. (2014). Higher Education Begins Here. Engineering Technology Jefferson Community Technical College, Louisville, KY; Academics Programs Of Study, Engineering Technology Retrieved on June 20, 2014 from http://www.jefferson.kctcs.edu/en/Academics/Programs_of_Study/Engineering_Technology.aspx
Precision Production. (2014). Most Popular Schools by Degree Program. State University: State University List, Most Popular Schools by Degree Program, Precision Production. Retrieved on June 16, 2014, from http://www.stateuniversity.com/programs/48/PRECISION-PRODUCTION#ixzz351Xm4eQd
Ransone, R. K. (March, 1981). Technical Snobbery Versus Clear Communicating. ERIC Number: ED199722, ISSN: ISSN-0304-3797 European Journal of Engineering Education, v31 n1 p95-107 Mar 2006 http://eric.ed.gov/?q=engineering+technologist&id=EJ831897
Bell,T. (Sept, 2000) Proven skills: The New Yardstick for Schools, IEEE Spectrum Online, Volume 37, Issue 9, Pages 63 – 67, ISSN : 0018-9235, INSPEC Accession Number: 6706386, Retrieved April l 5 th , 2005 from http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/publicfeature/sep00/abet.html http://spectrum.ieee.org/magazine/2000/September http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?arnumber=866286
Paul Clark 06/03/14
Engineering Technology 46
Bedi, J. (2014). Edison Invents! Edison Story. Simithsonian Institute; The Lemelson Center Presents Retrieved on June 18, 2014 from http://invention.smithsonian.org/centerpieces/edison/000_story_02.asp
Merriam-Webster. (2014). Associate Definition. Merriam-Webster, Incorporated, Encyclopædia Britannica Company. Retrieved on July 6, 2014 from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/associate
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (March 12, 2009). Response to Comment on 2010 SOC: Docket Number 08-1158, (Page 1). United States Department of Labor, Standard Occupational Classification Retrieved on July 2, 2014 from http://www.bls.gov/soc/2010_responses/response_08-1158.htm
Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor - Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2006- 07 Edition, Engineering Technicians - visited August 7, 2006 from http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos112.htm
IUPUI (2014). Electrical Engineering Technology. Purdue School of Engineering and Technology, IUPUI Retrieved on April 29, 2014 from http://www.engr.iupui.edu/departments/ent/about/programs/eet.php
Education Portal - See Prior Listing (Page 40) Precision Production – See Prior Listing (Page 41)
Musselman, C. (August 15, 2013). Engineering Technologists and Engineers – What is the Difference? (Page 1). National Society of Professional Engineers, Alexandria, VA Retrieved on July 2, 2014 from http://www.nspe.org/resources/blogs/pe-licensing-blog/engineering-technologists-and- engineers-what-difference#sthash.0Fh00xnA.dpuf
ABET (2011-2013. ABET: History. Baltimore, MD Retrieved on July 2, 2014 from http://www.abet.org/History/
Paul Clark 06/03/14
Engineering Technology 47
ERIC. (1966). Engineering Technology Careers; Career Guidance Information for Engineering Technicians. Publication No. 1065., National Council of Technical Schools, Washington, DC. ERIC Number: ED024770 Retrieved on May 8, 2015 from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED024770
Glassdoor (2008–2014). Engineer Technologist Salaries. Salaries posted anonymously by employees and employers. Glassdoor, Inc., Sausalito, California Retrieved on July 2, 2014 from http://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/engineer-technologist-pay-SRCH_KO0,21_IP3.htm
Bombardier Aerospace (July, 2014). Job Board. Bombardier the Evolution in Mobility, Dorval, Montreal, CA Retrieved on July 8, 2014 from http://jobs.bombardier.com/job/Dorval-Liaison-Engineer-Technologist-QC/2783727/
Mehrhoff, J. (May 1975). The Impact of Engineering Technology Programs on Engineering. Engineering Education, 65, 8, 800-802, May 75 Retrieved on June 23, 2014 from http://eric.ed.gov/?q=engineering+technologist&pg=2&id=EJ126483
Mennella, J. (July, 1977) The Educational Objectives of the Engineering Technology Program as Compared to the Engineering Program and Its Effects on the Engineering Technologist Position at the Engineering-Oriented College Placement Interviews at New Jersey Institute of Technology. Pages: 128 , ERIC Number: ED159555 http://eric.ed.gov/?q=engineering+technologist&pg=4&id=ED159555
ATMAE. (2014). Professional Certification. The Association of Technology, Management, and Applied Engineering. Applied Ann Arbor, MI http://atmae.org/index.php/certification-58
DETC (June, 2014). Distance Education and Training Council Washington, D.C. Retrieved on June 23, 2014 from http://www.detc.org/Seeking-Accreditation/index.aspx
ACCST (July, 2014). Accrediting Commission of the National Association of Trade and Technical Schools. Arlington, Virginia Retrieved on June 23, 2014 from http://www.accsc.org/About-Us/Overview.aspx
Paul Clark 06/03/14
Engineering Technology 48
ACICS (2010). Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools. Washington, DC http://www.acics.org
ABET (2011-13). Finding an Accreditation Program. The Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, Baltimore, MD Retrieved July 1 st , 2014 from http://www.abet.org
The U.S. Department of Education & The National Science Foundation (June, 1996) Mapping The World of Education: The Comparative Database (Sheet 31, Section 1). National Science Foundation Retrieve on March 31 st , 2014 from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/mapping/
Feisel, L. (2002) ABET Accrediation: Barrier or Bridge to Innovation? ASEE/SEFI/TU Berlin International Colloquium, "Global Changes in Engineering Education." Retrieved April 2, 2005 from http://www.tu-berlin.de/presse/div/asee-sefi_programm.pdf http://wwwchem.engr.utc.edu/asee/2002/Berlin/Preliminary-Program.doc
Mulrine, A. (February, 2003). The Real Test. ASEE Prism Online, Volume 12, Number 6, Page 1 Retrieved June 24, 2014 from http://www.prism-magazine.org/feb03/toolbox.cfm
Bell,T. (Sept, 2000) – See Prior Listing (page 40)
Scarpellini,N.& Bowen, B.(2001). Evaluation and Action: Sustaining Excellence in Collegiate Aviation Distance Education. The University of Omaha. Retrieved 2002 from http://www.unomaha.edu/~wwwpa/project/scarpellini.html
Grose, T. (April,2003) Can Distance Education Be Unlocked? ASEE Prism Online. Volume 12, Number 8, Page 1 Retrieved on 3/16/05 from http://www.prism-magazine.org/april03/unlocked.cfm
Paul Clark 06/03/14
Engineering Technology 49
Eades, A. (February, 2002) Web Extra: Incompatible roles for ABET. ASEE Prism Online Volume 11, Number 6 Retrieved June 24, 2014 from http://www.prism-magazine.org/feb02/webextra.cfm
The Virginia Western Community College(2000). Evaluation 2000 Goals. VWCC Factbook , Section 11 Retrieved on (4/5/05) from http://www.vw.vccs.edu/factbook/Eval2000Goals.html
Levy, J (2003, Jan) National and Global Aspects of Engineering Accreditation. ASEE Prism Online, Volume 12, Number 5, p1 retrieved June, 24, 2014 from http://www.prism-magazine.org/jan03/aseetoday.cfm
Budny,D. ,Krishnan,M., Das,S., Paulik,M., DeLyser,R., Khan,H., Elger,D., Yokomoto,C., Rowland,J., Litt,M., Carpenter,D. (2003,Nov) ASSESSMENT: WHEN IS ENOUGH, ENOUGH? 33rd ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Session T3H University of Pittsburgh; DOI: 10.1109/FIE.2003.1263356 In proceeding of: Frontiers in Education, 2003. FIE 2003. 33rd Annual, Volume: 1 Retrieved (2005) from http://fie.engrng.pitt.edu/fie2003/papers/1554.pdf#search='ASEE/IEEE%20Frontiers%20in%20e ducation%20Conference%20Session%20T3H '
Thomas Edison State College. (2014). Online Degrees. Retrieved from the Thomas Edison State College website on 05/27/14 at http://www.tesc.edu/academics/online-degrees.cfm
Laity,W. (March 17-18, 2001). Highlights of Board of Director Meeting Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology. , Page 2. American Society of Mechanical Engineers. , Associate Executive Director’s Report (Kate Aberle), ABET Recognition by U.S. Department of Education. Retrieve July 18, 2002 from http://www.asme.org/education/minutes/pdf/bee01samatt-g.pdf
Paul Clark 06/03/14
Engineering Technology 50
Wyrwich, T. (Jan. 19, 2001). Engineering accreditation case complete. The Maneater Student Newspaper, Campus, p1 Retrieved on 6/26/13 from http://www.themaneater.com/stories/2001/1/19/engineering-accreditation-case-complete/
S. Strong, M. Kassapoglou, J, Dugger, & A. Rudisill (1999). The National Association of Industrial Technology: A Reference Publication of Epsilon Pi Tau. Journal of Industrial Technology. Origins and Leadership for the Future Retrieved 2002 from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JTS/Summer-Fall-1999/Strong.html
ABET (2011-13). Diploma & Accreditation Mills. Accreditation: Why Accreditation Matters, Why Accreditation Matters to Students. Baltimore, MD Retrieved July 1 st , 2014 from http://www.abet.org/DisplayTemplates/Detail.aspx?id=297
CHEA (2014). Accreditation and Recognition In The United States. Retrieved from The Council for Higher Education Association website on June 11, 2014 from https://www.chea.org/pdf/AccredRecogUS_2012.pdf
USDOE. (June, 2014). Accreditation in the United States, Overview of Accreditation. United States Department of Education. Retrieved July 1 st , 2014 from http://www2.ed.gov/admins/finaid/accred/accreditation.html#Overview
Boston Globe. (2004). A Visa Shortage. The New York Times Company, Globe Newspaper Company, Opinion, Editorials Retrieve on (4/5/05) from http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2004/05/30/a_visa_short age/
US News (April, 2014). U.S. News & World Report Unveils the U.S. News/Raytheon STEM Index, New index shows America's STEM talent pool too shallow to meet demand. Retrieved July 1st, 2014 from http://www.usnews.com/info/blogs/press-room/2014/04/23/us-news-unveils-the-us-news- raytheon-stem-index
Paul Clark 06/03/14
Engineering Technology 51
Sloan Foundation. (2012) Changing the dynamic of engineering education. 18th Annual Sloan Consortium, International Conference on Online Learning. Retrieved June 16, 2014, from http://sloanconsortium.org/conference/2012/aln/changing-dynamic-engineering-education- through-technological-advancements-classr
ABET (October, 2013). Online Programs What is an Online Program? The Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, Baltimore, MD Retrieved July 7, 2014 from http://www.abet.org/online-programs/
T. Gibson. (April 2014). Engineering in the Distance. (p39-43). Mechanical Engineering Magazine. American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Indiana Legislative Services (2010). Indiana Code IC 25-1-4-3.2 Retrieve from the Office of Code Revision on March 31, 2014 at http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/2010/title25/ar1/ch4.html
House of Representative (2002, September 30). H.R. 5501, The Higher Education Accrediting Agency Responsibility Act of 2002. 107th Congress, 2D Session, Committee on Education and the Workforce. Lines 16-19 Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved on June 25, 2014 from http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-107hr5501ih/content-detail.html
Rogers, D. (October, 2002). Brief Overview: Accreditation Hearing before the Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness, U.S. House of Representatives Council for Higher Education Association, Washington DC. Retrieved July 7, 2014 from http://www.chea.org/government/govt%20rel%20docs/hearing%2010-1-02%20overview.pdf
Dean, W. (2014). School of Engineering and Technology. CQUniversity Australia, Higher Education Division, School of Engineering and Technology, Page 1 Retrieved July 1st, 2014 from http://www.cqu.edu.au/academic/hed/set
Paul Clark 06/03/14
Engineering Technology 52
Musselman, C. (February 11, 2013). Licensure of Engineering Technologists: Part I – Current Status. National Society of Professional Engineers Retrieved July 1st, 2014 from http://www.nspe.org/resources/blogs/pe-licensing-blog/licensure-engineering-technologists-part- i-current-status
Layman, J. (2014). Indiana – PE Requirements. Layman ENG, Put Your Mind In Motion, (Page 1). Retrieved July 1st, 2014 from http://www.laymaneng.com/?page_id=209
IC 25-31-1-12 (2014). Qualifications for Registration. Office of Code Revision Indiana Legislative Services Agency http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/2004/title25/ar31/ch1.html
See Previous Listing - Musselman, C. (February 11, 2013)
Musselman, C. (October, 2009). The Industrial Exemption: What, If Anything, Should The Profession Do? National Society of Professional Engineers Retrieved July 1st, 2014 from http://www.nspe.org/resources/blogs/pe-licensing-blog/industrial-exemption-what-if-anything- should-profession-do#sthash.zUsjFZwI.dpuf
Einstein, A. (February, 2014). EnDyslexia: Our Education System is Failing Students – Cartoon. Dyslexia United Blogsite Retrieved on May 13, 2015 http://dyslexiauntied.blogspot.com/2014/02/dyslexia-our-education-system-is.html
NSPE (2014). Issues and Advocacy: Engineering Technology; NSPE Position. National Society of Professional Engineers Retrieved July 1st, 2014 from http://www.nspe.org/resources/issues-and-advocacy/take-action/issue-briefs/engineering- technology
The U.S. Department of Education & The National Science Foundation (June, 1996) Mapping The World of Education: The Comparative Database (Volume 1, page 30). Retrieve on March 31 st , 2014 from National Science Foundation at http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/mapping/pdf/sect1.pdf
Paul Clark 06/03/14
Engineering Technology 53
SBE (2014). Why be Certified. The Society of Broadcast Engineers. Indianapolis, IN. Retrieved on June 23, 2014 from http://www.sbe.org/sections/cert_index.php
SME (2014). Technical Certifications. Society of Manufacturing Engineers. Dearborn, MI. Retrieved on June 23, 2014 from http://www.sme.org/certification-technical/
ATMAE – See prior listing (page 42)
NICET. (2014). Technologist Certification Program. National Institute for Certification in Engineering Technologies Retrieved on June 23, 2014 from http://www.nicet.org/become-certified/how-do-i-get-certified/technologist-certification-program/
ASCET. (2014). Certifying Bodies. American Society of Certified Electronic Technicians, Cape May Court House, NJ Retrieved on June 23, 2014 from http://www.ascet.org/CertBodies
J., Powell (2006-2008). The Education of Thomas Edison. Retreieved on March 29, 2014 from http://www.homeschoolresourcecenter.net/article_the_education_of_thomas_edison.htm
Tesla University. (2014). Tesla’s Timeline; Year 1862; Tesla’s Family Moves to Gospic’. Retrieved on March 29, 2014 from Tesla University. http://www.teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla-timeline-1862-tesla-moves-to-gospic
Schmitt, F. (jan. 2013) George Westinghouse. Retrieved from the Study Mode website on March 29, 2014 at http://www.studymode.com/essays/George-Westinghouse-1365726.html
Allstar Network (1995-2014). The Wright Brothers, Wilbur and Orville. Retrieved from the Aeronautics Learning Laboratory for Science Technology and Research and The International Hall of Fame; The San Diego Aerospace Museum, San Diego, CA. Retrieved on March 29, 2014 from http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/aero/wrightbros.htm
Paul Clark 06/03/14
Engineering Technology 54
World Biography. (2014). Henry Ford Biography. Encyclopedia of World Biography. Advameg, Inc. http://www.notablebiographies.com/Fi-Gi/Ford-Henry.html#b
Musselman, C. (September 20, 2013). Engineering Industrial Exemptions: Status by Jurisdiction. National Society of Professional Engineers. Retrieved on June 23, 2014 from http://www.nspe.org/categories/tags/industrial-exemption
King, G. (October , 2011). Edison vs. Westinghouse: A Shocking. Rivalry. Retrieve on March 29, 2014 from http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/edison-vs-westinghouse-a-shocking-rivalry- 102146036/?no-ist
Industrial Exemption Task Force. (December, 2012). Analysis of State Licensing Board Exemptions from Engineering Licenses. Developed by the Industrial Exemption Task Force on NSPE Review of State Engineering Licensing Laws. National Society of Professional Engineers. Retrieved on June 23, 2014 from http://www.nspe.org/sites/default/files/resources/industrial_exemption_table_2013_ncees.pdf
Illinois General Assembly (May, 2015). Professions, Occupations, and Business Operations (225 ILCS 325/) Professional Engineering Practice Act of 1989. Retrieved on May 8, 2015 from http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=1344&ChapterID=24
Musselman, C. (October, 2013) Unlicensed Practice of Engineering. PE Licensing Blog » Unlicensed Practice of Engineering. National Society of Professional Engineers Retrieved on July 6, 2014 from http://www.nspe.org/resources/blogs/pe-licensing-blog/unlicensed-practice-engineering
Kelly, M. (2014). Top 10 Significant Industrial Revolution Inventors American History, Industrial Revolution, About.com Retrieved on July 4th, 2014 from http://americanhistory.about.com/od/industrialrev/tp/inventors.htm
Paul Clark 06/03/14
Engineering Technology 55
Carter, J. (May, 2012). The Compelling Rationale to Remove Engineering Industrial Exemptions. National Society of Professional Engineers, PE Licensing Blog. (Page 1). Retrieve on March 29, 2014 from http://www.nspe.org/resources/blogs/pe-licensing-blog/compelling-rationale-remove- engineering-industrial-exemptions#sthash.cuZKPPMj.dpuf
Musselman, C. (September 20, 2013). Engineering Industrial Exemptions: Status by Jurisdiction. National Society of Professional Engineers PE Licensing Blog, Engineering Industrial Exemptions, Status by Jurisdiction Retrieved on July 4th, 2014 from http://www.nspe.org/resources/blogs/pe-licensing-blog/engineering-industrial-exemptions-status- jurisdiction#sthash.w2wRtMos.dpuf
IET (2014). Past Presidents of the IIE. The Institution of Engineering and Technology Michael Faraday House, Six Hills Way, Stevenage Herts, UK Retrieved on July 4, 2014 from http://www.theiet.org/resources/library/archives/institution-history/presidents-iie.cfm
Mathes, J. C. (April, 1984). Good Engineering + Poor Communication = Three Mile Island. ERIC Number: ED253903, Page 23, Retrieved on June 23, 2014 from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED253903
Arup (2013-2014). Sydney Opera House. OverviewFast facts. Global, Home, Projects, Page 1 Retrieved on July 6, 2014 from http://www.arup.com/Projects/Sydney_Opera_House.aspx
Purdue (2013). Matlab. Purdue University, Information Technology, West Lafayette Retrieved on July 6, 2014 from http://www.itap.purdue.edu/shopping/software/product/matlab.html
Koltow, D (1999-2014). What Is Computer Aided Design Software? eHow, Demand Media, Inc. Retrieved on July 6, 2014 from http://www.ehow.com/about_6612966_computer-aided-design-software_.html
Paul Clark 06/03/14
Engineering Technology 56
TechTarget. (199-2014). Definition Primavera. Tech Target Part of the Software applications glossary: WhatIs.com Retrieved on July 6, 2014 from http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/Primavera
ETMF – See Prior listing, Page 39
OACETT (2015). Technician and Technologist Profiles Retrieved on May 26, 2015 from www.oacett.org/downloads/ieto/COR-Tech-Profiles.pdf
Engineering Council (2014). Incorporated Engineer (IEng). Why become registered as an IEng? London, England Retrieved on July 6, 2014 from http://www.engc.org.uk/ieng.aspx
IME. (2014) A Class of Its Own. Class of Membership and Registration. (page 3). Members Guide of The Institution of Mechanical Engineers, United Kindom Retrieved on July 6, 2014 from http://www.imeche.org/docs/default-source/membership/MembersGuide.sflb
(Statutory Instrument 2005 No. 18), The European Communities (Recognition of Professional Qualifications) (First General System) Regulations 2005, Schedule 1, Part 1, Regulations 2(1), 4 and 10 (3). Retrieved from the UK Law Legal Portal on July 6, 2014 from http://www.uklaws.org/statutory/instruments_32/doc32795.htm
European Commission (2014). Incorporated engineer (United Kingdom) The Regulated Profession Database Retrieved on March 30, 2014 from http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/qualifications/regprof/index.cfm?fuseaction=regProf.show& RPId=3359
AACRAO (January 3, 2006). Evaluation of International Education Credentials: Paul R. Clark. Incorporated Engineer Membership, United Kingdom, Award Date 07/12/04 Transcript of Academic Record 100581 Engineering Council. (2014). International Engineering Technologists (IntET) Register Retrieved on March 30, 2014 from http://www.engc.org.uk/engcdocuments/internet/Website/IntET%20Application%20Form%20G uidance%20March%202010.pdf
Paul Clark 06/03/14
Engineering Technology 57
UNESCO. (April, 1997). Tools: European Region Convention (1997) Participating Member States. Convention on the Recognition of Studies, Diplomas and Degrees in Higher Education in European Region. Adopted at Lisbon, 11 April 1997 (European Treaty Series No. 165) United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, Study Abroad Retrieved on July 6, 2014 from http://www.unesco.org/education/studyingabroad/tools/conventions_e97_member_states.shtml
Council of Europe. (1997). Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications concerning Higher Education in the European Region. Lisbon, 11.IV.1997 Retrieved on July 6, 2014 from http://www.conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/165.htm
Musselman, C. (May, 2012). Would Two Levels of Engineering Licensure Work in the U.S.? National Society of Professional Engineers Retrieved on July 6, 2014 from http://www.nspe.org/resources/blogs/pe-licensing-blog/would-two-levels-engineering-licensure- work-us
City & Guilds of London Institute (2014). Qualifications & Apprenticeships. City & Guilds Center for Skills Development Retrieved on July 6, 2014 from http://www.cityandguilds.com/qualifications-and-apprenticeships#fil=uk
NCEES (2014). NCEES Engineering Education Standard. National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying. Retrieved on July 6, 2014 from http://ncees.org/credentials-evaluations/ncees-engineering-education-standard/
Schuhmann, R. & Skopek, T (2008). Traditional and Non-traditional Students in the Same Classroom? Additional Challenges of the Distance Education Environment Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, Volume X1, Number I, Spring 2008 University of West Georgia, Distance Education Center Retrieved February 18, 2015 from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring111/skopek111.html
Sloan Career Cornerstone Center (2015). Engineering Technology Overview. Retrieved February 18, 2015 from http://careercornerstone.org/pdf/engtech/engtech.pdf
Paul Clark 06/03/14
Engineering Technology 58
Milwaukee School of Engineering (2015). Electrical Engineering AAS-EET to BSEE Transfer Plan. Milwaukee School of Engineering, North Broadway, Milwaukee, WI. Retrieved on May 8, 2015 from http://catalog.msoe.edu/preview_program.php?catoid=6&poid=263&returnto=146
Purdue University. (2015). BSEE/MBA Combined Degree Fact Sheet. Purdue's College of Engineering and the Krannert School of Management. Lafayette, IN Retrieved on May 8, 2015 from http://www.krannert.purdue.edu/masters/programs/combined-degree- programs/bseemba/home.asp
Purdue University North Central. (2015). Electrical Engineering Plan of Study. Purdue University North Central, Westville, IN Retrieved on May 8, 2015 from https://www.pnc.edu/engineering/electricalengineering/
Land, R. (2012). Engineering Technologists Are Engineers. Journal of Engineering Technology, Spring 2012, p39. Retrieved on March 30, 2014 from http://www.engtech.org/docs/Jet_Article_re_Survey.pdf
Musselman, C. (February, 2014). by Model Law 2020 - Alternate Pathways. National Society of Professional Engineers. PE Licensing Blog, Model Law 2020, Alternate Pathways. Retrieved on July 6, 2014 from http://www.nspe.org/resources/blogs/pe-licensing-blog/model-law-2020-alternate-pathways
NSPE (2014). Issues and Advocacy: Engineering Technology; NSPE Position. National Society of Professional Engineers Retrieved July 1st, 2014 from http://www.nspe.org/resources/issues-and-advocacy/take-action/issue-briefs/engineering- technology
Wulf, W . (1999). Testimony to the Commission on the Advancement of Women and Minorities in Science, Engineering, and Technology Development. (p1). National Academy of Engineering Retrieved June 16, 2014, from http://www.nae.edu/News/SpeechesandRemarks/TestimonytotheCommissionontheAdvancement ofWomenandMinoritiesinScienceEngineeringandTechnologyDevelopment.aspx
Paul Clark 06/03/14
Engineering Technology 59
Appendix
Petition Link: http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/the-engineering-technology
Job Placement Examples:
GlassDoor – http://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/engineer-technologist-pay- SRCH_KO0,21_IP3.htm
General Electric - Fairfield, CT
Titles: GE Lead Engineer Technologist
http://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/GE-Lead-Engineer-Technologist- Salaries-E277_D_KO3,29.htm http://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/GE-Engineer-Technologist-Salaries- E277_D_KO3,24.htm
Baker Hughes – Houston, TX
Titles: Engineering Technologist
http://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Baker-Hughes-Salaries-E72.htm
Goodrich Corporation - Charlotte, NC
Title: Senior Engineering Technologist
http://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Goodrich-Corporation-Senior- Engineering-Technologist-Salaries-E68_D_KO21,52.htm
Dell - Round Rock, TX
Title: Senior Engineering Technologist
http://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Dell-Senior-Engineering-Technologist- Salaries-E1327_D_KO5,36.htm
Paul Clark 06/03/14
Engineering Technology 60
Bombardier Aerospace - Dorval, Montreal, CA
Title: Liaison Engineer / Technologist http://jobs.bombardier.com/job/Dorval-Liaison-Engineer-Technologist- QC/2783727/
Traditional Online Undergraduate Programs
ABET – Traditional Engineering Undergraduate Online List
http://www.abet.org/online-programs/
List of Year Required for Professional Engineering License:
http://www.nspe.org/resources/blogs/pe-licensing-blog/licensure-engineering- technologists-part-i-current-status
A list of exemptions is provided in a chart at the following link:
http://www.nspe.org/categories/tags/industrial-exemption
Paul Clark 06/03/14
Engineering Technology 61
Paul Clark 06/03/14
Engineering Technology 62
Paul Clark 06/03/14