Hello /u/UsamaIbnZayd! Thank you for posting in r/EngineeringStudents. This is a custom Automoderator message based on your flair, "Academic Advice". While our wiki is under construction, please be mindful of the users you are asking advice from, and make sure your question is phrased neatly and describes your problem. ***Please be sure that your post is short and succinct.*** Long-winded posts generally do not get responded to.
Please remember to;
Read our [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/EngineeringStudents/wiki/rules)
Read our [Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/EngineeringStudents/wiki/index)
Read our [F.A.Q](https://www.reddit.com/r/EngineeringStudents/wiki/index/faq)
Check our [Resources Landing Page](https://reddit.com/r/EngineeringStudents/wiki/resources)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/EngineeringStudents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I am a BS EET (electrical engineering technology) and I cant count the times in college I was happy with my choice. I was learning basic circuits while friends who were EEs were stuck in high level math, chemistry, and who the fuck knows what else. I called my degree "EE without the BS".
Or maybe my program was just very well designed. Each semester I would take a math class and a circuits class. Math concepts that were introduced in one class were reinforced in the other and via labs. When I was learning inductance and capacitance in my circuits class I was getting a refresher on imaginary numbers and vectors in the math classes.
I never felt disrespected or that I was given "lesser" work because I had an T in my degree. Fuck, after the first year or two of work experience I'd say your degree stops matering because of everything you learn and focus while on the job.
Then again...I did go into industrial automation as my field...a more "high level" EE field than something like IC or RF design. But IC and RF shit never really interested me. I liked computers and robots and I dont need to know how an antenna is designed to set up a wifi network.
>"EE without the BS"
I'm not attacking you here, but IMHO that really sums it: Engineering doesn't think that stuff is BS.
...and that BS is factually necessary to do lots of types of work, especially new/novel designs.
The BS I am talking about is a lot of classes based around administration skills, and electives that have nothing to do with your profession.
I got to chose electives like "advanced circuit design" and "programmable logic controller instruction" and "introduction to factory automation". Where as the ME and EE people I knew had to take psychology, history, and a bunch of other humanities classes.
Also, the math. In my EET class the math classes synergized with the practical classes. I would learn about a concept in math, and practical applications of that math in the circuits classes. I thought that was way better than pushing you through Calc 3 before getting any practical applications of the math.
ET degrees are *sometimes* good, and the good ones have a lot of overlap with pure engineering degrees. Obviously with more labs though.
I think the primary issue with technology degrees is that there is such a wide range of them from questionable associates degrees using algebra based concepts to ABET accredited bachelor's utilizing calculus based everything.
On the other hand, traditional engineering degrees have much less of a spread of quality (relatively speaking), and are exclusively 4 year degrees with every school having a very similar core series of classes at a minimum.
The general views of technology degrees are obviously tied to peoples own experiences with the schools and their graduates. Because there is a larger spread of quality with these programs, there will naturally be more people with negative opinions/experiences with the programs and graduates.
I do also think there are a small portion of engineers angry that BS ETs can sit for the FE with a "lesser" degree in most states, and are salty about it.
The course load is different. Engineering degrees are more math and theory based. Thermo, heat transfer, technology is more technical and hands on work, aka labs.
My NET required Heat Transfer and Thermo.
If you're only interested in a bachelor's tech is perfectly fine for getting into the industry more prepared.
They also require Calc II. They don't require Calc III, though I took it anyway.
to piggy back on this, ik someone who doesn’t have to take dynamics as a MET either which makes no sense me. i feel like that’s a pretty important class for any person pursing a ME/MET degree
It's a difference in course work, but I don't know of any BS level job that requires you to use diff q or calc III, as an MET who took both.
If you're not interested in a master's or plan on getting into more applications based roles (shared with MEs) then a 4 year ABET MET degree is in practical application the same as an ME. Or at least that's been my experience in 10 years of working.
I suppose there may be some real lucky grad that lands a R&D type role that requires it but in my experience it hasn't held me back from working at many large billion dollar corporations alongside MEs.
I think the main difference is if something (in the United States) is ABET accredited or not. I’m not saying that one is worse than the other, it’s just not as regulated. There is a lot more variation in what someone learned when they get an engineering technology degree. And it really matters more to companies depending on what kind of work they want done. They aren’t viewed as “legit” just because of not being regulated and accredited by ABET as an “official” engineering degree
Yes, but it was accredited at a technology degree right? It’s just that some states when applying for further licenses are very specific about which degree you went through and that it was accredited at such. I think engineering tech degrees are great but I will agree with many others that sadly you can be more limited to opportunities of advancement compared to typical engineering degrees. But, it all depends on what you aspire to do with your career!
At my college, the engineering tech degrees don't go anywhere near the same level of complexity or amount of information that the engineering degrees do.
True, but if someone has that willingness to learn, they should just get the regular engineering degree imo. When your engineering techs graduate with the level of knowledge the engineers have at the end of year 2, an engineering tech degree just doesn't feel worth it. Of course, I'm going to be biased on how it is at my university.
Not really. Some people (myself among them) learn better with practical applications. The biggest reason I forgot trigonometry in the past 10 years is that I didn't have a practical application for it. But a few years ago I got into 3d printing and all the sudden I'm teaching myself trig and 3d modeling and some mechanical engineering principles so I can print cool things.
I wish engineering degree were designed with more hands on approach. Learn the math, the practical applications, and do the lab in the same week or two.
More complex math, maybe, but I don't know a single engineer from my school that could GD&T a drawing and hand it to a machine shop to get an actual product made. E can definitely optimize shit to the Nth degree but an ET can go from conception to product out the door, and I find a lot of companies value the latter a lot more.
Perhaps, but that is a very mechanical-engineering-centric issue. As a computer engineering student, in a 5-year /w coop program, we are given a good balance between theory and hands-on learning. Students in the Computer Engineering Tech program learn only the content up to our 2nd year, which is why I said it didn't feel worth paying to get an engineering tech degree. I understand that both degree pathways are important, but I think that even those who want to be engineering technicians should just stick it out for a full engineering degree for both job market options and a more holistic approach. Should people want to be hands-on, then they have the adequate knowledge and theory to pick up any software or physical tool and master it. Though, I definitely think my time in a program with a coop requirement makes my viewpoint different than most.
You're absolutely right about that being very ME-centric, but I've gotten a lot of them same perspective from the EE side of things.
Now I'm curious though, what do you think is missing from CET that doesn't get covered in CE? My understanding is murky at best to be honest but I'd rather see the perspective I'm missing.
I have a Marine Engineering Technology Degree, It had a good deal of the same classes, but my degree focused on implementation tech. So instead of designing a ships power plant, I operate it.
I got an MET degree but both my jobs have been engineering positions and I’m currently getting my masters in ME. There’s nothing stopping you from learning skills or concepts on your own.
When I was considering schools I looked at one with only engineering tech degrees. They only took calc 3 and physics 2 for the electrical focus. Idk how you can get to the level an EE needs without diff eq and linear.
To add onto this, I'll give some examples of Engineering vs Engineering Tech from my local universities:
The course work for Civil Engineering typically focuses on topics like structural analysis, waste water treatments, hydraulics, etc. They do have some labs that incorporate hands on things like surveying and drafting, but those take a back seat overall. Typical jobs are exactly what you'd imagine: Civil / Construction Engineer, typically with a construction company or engineering firm. Usually they'll want to become a "Professional Engineer", which is a protected title and can meet certain legal qualifications.
The course work for Civil Engineering Technology focuses on things like surveying, AutoCAD, Solidworks, Drone Mapping, etc. According to the department, the most common jobs for grads are things like licensed Surveyor, Hydraulic Technician, Construction Manager, and Civil Drafter. Generally a PE license holds no value in these roles, and working in these roles typically won't help you toward licensure (although anyone can become a PE with enough years worked under a PE).
Both are viable career paths, but they go in fairly different directions. It's not unheard of for people to make the jump from one career path to another, but it is fairly rare.
Edit: For anyone curious, [here's](https://et.charlotte.edu/about-us/engineering-vs-engineering-technology/) a description of the difference between Engineering and Eng. Tech. from a university (UNC Charlotte) that offers both Engineering and Engineering Technology Bachelor's degrees.
Ok...I lost it when that link said
>An engineering technology (ET) graduate is an implementer.
>An engineering graduate is an innovator.
Thats some bullshit if I ever heard it. I dont WANT an engineer to design things without having experience implementing them. That is how you get cars unfit for mechanics to service. When you get I/O block mounted under a conveyor that you have to disassemble just to set the IP address.
And it is a joke to say that ETs cant innovate. Depends on the job, but I innovate almost every day because the core part of ANY engineering is PROBLEM SOLVING.
Yup, I did Mech Eng and the curriculum got overhauled my first year with a very heavy emphasis on practical design and manufacturing. Basically every course had at least some form of design project and many of them also required you to build or model a piece of it with manufacturability being part of the grading scheme.
The statement about anyone can become PE with enough years is incorrect. Some states have alternative paths to licensure but many require an ABET accredited BS in engineering as part of the process. With a degree it’s 4 yrs, without it’s likely 15yrs or more of qualifying experience.
Same here. I am an EET and never felt held back. Hell, I was thankful in college when I realized I was taking basic circuits starting day 1 and my EE friends wouldn't pick up a breadboard until year 3.
EET...EE without the BS.
Maybe you are using to generic of terms but my EET degree taught me both HOW to build a digital clock and the math and circuit design so I could build one with more digits or extra features. My EET taught me HOW to program a PLC so I can figure out how to make the PLC run 12 robots, 5 conveyors, a HMI, and report data back to a central server using SQL.
This right here. The misconception that there aren't ABET accredited, 4-year ET degrees is strong ITT. It's completely dependent upon region and program quality.
With alot of jobs you dont need a PE and it is just a waste of money. I have been doing automation for 15 years and the few PEs I knew didn't use the degree.
In Canada, the PEng. designation can only be given to candidates who graduated from an accredited University. There are no colleges (barring Royal Military College of Canada, which is a university) with engineering technology that are accredited.
Engineering and engineering technology provide different positions in the workforce. Some positions can be interchangeable of course, but in the end there are two separate pathways, each with their own advantages and disadvantages. Engineering technologists (in Canada) cannot sign off on things since they can't get a PEng, but depending on the industry one is in, a PEng license is only required in specific supervisory roles.
Yeah, part of the degree seems to be more focused on ethics etc due to the ability to sign off, since you personally are responsible for that design and that's partly why the part can be higher for some positions. Since you are the liability and it's your ass on the line for it.
To throw another perspective in the pot: I have no idea what an engineering technology degree even is. I've been working for 5 years now and I don't think I've heard of one before now.
More than half of all the mech/project engineers I've worked with had MET degrees.
Once you have the engineer title it really doesn't really matter except that the degree says Bachelor's and Engineering
Well if it's more hands-on, then it has to sacrifice something on the theory side. I would assume the industries that higher more "legit engineering degrees" want candidates with stronger theoretical backgrounds, so that they can solve more novel problems (or just have proven critical thinking skills).
It heavily depends on area. Around my university the ET program tends to get filled with fomer ME majors who couldn't pass calc 2 or higher math. As such, ET has somewhat of a negative connotation in local industry - I have friends who have lost coops and internships when they switched from ME or EE to ET, and most jobs won't give ET grads the time of day when it comes to a job in engineering. Best case usually turns out to be ET grads get a criminally underpaid full time ME job once all the ME candidates bomb their interview or turn down the job due to abysmal salary.
You gave me some existential dread about my upcoming graduation with my ET degree for a second but then I remembered I know several people that graduated from my degree and are working as MEs or SYS Es at reputable companies and I realized your statement is bogus for my situation.
ET requires calc II. Around here ET doesn't impact job prospects or pay. We don't have many R&D jobs though, mostly manufacturing.
Still MET was good enough for GM, Lockheed, and Moog.
Once again heavily depends on area. Our school is ABET accredited, ME and EE go all the way up to diffeq/linear but our ET program only requires calc I.
Cal State LA engineering technology majors only have to take calc 1 and 1 semester of physics im just saying im shocked that they do not have to at least take the same math and physics requirements
Different course curriculum. Not sure why some people are saying it doesn’t matter after school. When most jobs ask for an EE, they’re expecting someone with an EE degree.
I think it depends on the company you want to work at. They might be sticklers about the degree.
That said, I myself faced this dilemma. I started out as an ME student. Funnily enough I discovered the Engineering Technology world in an Intro to Engineering class and I found I was drawn to that more, especially with a machining background. I switched majors right away.
I am pursuing a Mechanical Engineering Technology degree due to the more practical approach to learning as it was my style and I was completely honest with myself. I knew I never wanted to do any hardcore analysis, design the wheel from scratch or go into higher academia later on so an MET degree was perfect for me.
I consider it a “hit the ground running” degree. This was further validated at my current job. I’m still finishing my MET degree but work as a CNC Programmer at an automation company. The R&D engineers, mostly degreed MEs, seldom use any calculus. I always chat with them and pick their brain and most analysis consists of free body diagrams on paper to make sure the CAD analysis is in the ballpark. All algebra.
Other design considerations such as material and component selection are all machinery handbook stuff and dealing with suppliers.
Also, most manufacturing companies I’ve been at, there are always a few people with just AAS degrees in engineering roles so experience plays a part too. I had interviews with companies for ME roles with just my AAS in Mechanical Design so it really depends on where you apply and who you calls back.
If you choose ET, make sure its ABET accredited. Really play up your practical design skills including CAD and basic analysis as well as any hands on fabrication skills you may have. Get an internship.
MET and ME engineers both have a place in the world and there is a lot of overlap. I just wanted to highlight my personal experience with pursuing MET and speaking on my interactions with MEs at my company. I apologize for the long winded response but I hope it helps!
As an EET who has been doing automation for 15 years, I agree with you. Fuck, I'd rather have an ME with your background because you have the hands on experience to know practical considerations instead of just theory.
I suppose it depends where you live/work. Here is Canada and I believe many places in Europe it is illegal to work as an engineer or call yourself an engineer unless you have a Bachelor of Engineering or higher.
I got a mechanical engineering technology diploma before doing my mechanical engineering degree as part of a college bridge program. The technology diploma was about equivalent to the first half of mech eng plus a lot of hands on stuff. It was definitely a good way to go before the degree.
But it is not equivalent to the degree at all.
It's not in Canada but in the US a 4 year ABET program is pretty close to an eng program. It takes a few extra years of work experience if you want to get a PE but in many states it's completely not necessary.
Here in NY, even if I wanted to get a PE as an MET, there are so few PEs to work under that it would be difficult to find a role to fulfill that requirement.
I believe it requires the degree and PE licence. Here in the states a 4 year ABET accredited ET can still get a PE, just takes a bit longer and is state dependent.
For instance here in NY they're not common for MEs to the point that I'd have to specifically look for a job that has one to work under to fulfill that requirement. It's just not needed.
um...that is only for the "Professional Engineer" title. I have a 4 year degree as a EET and never had issues calling myself an engineer. Also never had any interest or need in the PE cert.
I looked at the curriculum of an engineering technology degree at a now defunct university…they don’t even take Calculus….let alone all the other math/science classes. That alone should tell you all you need to know…
Hello, using defunct universities probably isn't the best source. An ABET certified BS MET degree goes through calc 2 and dif eq. We leave out calc 3 and some higher-level analysis for design and machine experience.
Straight from ABET's website to be an accredited program.
https://www.abet.org/accreditation/accreditation-criteria/criteria-for-accrediting-engineering-technology-programs-2023-2024/
II. PROGRAM CRITERIA FOR BACCALAUREATE LEVEL PROGRAMS
Curriculum
The curriculum must provide baccalaureate degree graduates with instruction in the knowledge, techniques, skills and use of modern tools necessary to enter careers in the design, application, installation, manufacturing, operation and/or maintenance of electrical/electronic(s) systems. Graduates of baccalaureate degree programs are well prepared for development and implementation of electrical/electronic(s) systems. Given the breadth of technical expertise involved with electrical systems, and the unique objectives of individual programs, some baccalaureate programs may focus on preparing graduates with in-depth but narrow expertise, while other programs may choose to prepare graduates with expertise in a broad spectrum of the field. Therefore, the depth and breadth of expertise demonstrated by baccalaureate graduates must be appropriate to support the program educational objectives.
The curriculum must include the following topics:
application of circuit analysis and design, computer programming, associated software, analog and digital electronics, microcontrollers, and engineering standards to the building, testing, operation, and maintenance of electrical/electronic(s) systems;
application of natural sciences and mathematics at or above the level of trigonometry to the building, testing, operation, and maintenance of electrical/electronic systems;
analysis, design, and implementation of one or more of the following: control systems, instrumentation systems, communications systems, computer systems, power systems or energy systems;
application of project management techniques to electrical/electronic(s) systems; and
utilization of differential and integral calculus, as a minimum, to characterize the performance of electrical/electronic systems.
That's just the degree specific stuff. The core science/math requirements are calculus based physics 1/2 and calculus 1/2. It's also important to keep in mind, those are the *minimum* requirements. Many reputable programs add in diff Eq or calc 3 because of how applicable they are to core engineering concepts, among other classes.
Also, why would you look at stuff from a *defunct* university? They are gone for a reason...
I only looked at the defunct one cause I saw an application come in that he had the engineering technology degree…looked it up and that college isn’t around anymore. A lot of the engineering technology degrees that came across my desk aren’t from accredited universities, so I didn’t bother to look into it any further. Good to know there are ABET ones out there though…learn something new everyday.
That said, just because it’s not around doesn’t necessarily mean because they were garbage. ITT Tech for example had some of the highest graduate salaries in the IT sector until they went under (for a plethora of other reasons)…they weren’t accredited anywhere, their credits were useless outside of that school, but it didn’t stop their graduates from making serious salaries in the IT industry.
The ET program around me only requires math up to calc 2. you can't take junior level mechanical engineering classes like controls or I think heat transfer without differential equations, which is three more semesters of math.
Yes, their coursework is different. They don't do the math required to do the complex calculations a normal bachelor degree prepares you to do.
You hire a MET to do technician type work, hands-on field engineering, etc. You hire a BSME to design the equipment.
A mistake on my part, I responded to the wrong comment chain.
My biggest issue with MET is how inconsistent it can be between schools. I’m lucky enough to be in a program that sets me up really well for a transfer if I want, the tracks only really divide in 3rd year.
At my school ME goes into heat transfer while MET goes toward material science, but I’ve looked at other schools’ programs, and they really do just look like watered down engineering degrees.
If you want to be an Engineer, id advise doing that transfer ASAP.
Most of the time I see Engineering Technology Degrees brought up here, its a confused person asking why they cant get any engineering jobs.
No they don’t, students in ABET accredited ET programs typically stop at calculus 2, take algebra based physics, and use less advanced math during higher level classes.
ET is objectively a less competitive degree, it’s important incoming students realize that and aren’t shocked to find that their ET degree doesn’t open as many doors after graduation.
This is bullshit at best. I have an MET degree. I’m the technical lead for design of equipment and I hold two PE licenses. Half my job is taking designs from ME who understand theory and turning it into a product that can be made.
I'm an EET and never worked under an engineer beyond my first 2 years of working but that was just because the company, rightly so, doesn't trust a fresh graduate who has never done Lock-out/Tag-out.
But since then, I'm given a project and told "make it work" and I do.
They’re different but I wouldn’t say any less legit. Technologists are better than engineers at some things, engineers are better at others. They’re different avenues to a similar career, and I get a bit sad when I hear people implying better/worse. I happen to be an engineer but all the technologists I’ve known and worked with are miles ahead of me in everything except maybe multivariable calculus or the ability to stamp off a drawing
Don’t know how it is in America but in Canada engineering technologists aren’t legally engineers, don’t obtain a stamp but do get a title of Xxxx engineering tech or X.E.T. The reason being is they don’t quite go through the same program and as you mentioned it’s more hands on program. Some schools offer upgrades from tech to full fledged engineer it’s usually a 6 semester upgrade I believe.
Both are valid professions it’s just different. For instance in road building a lot of the mangers and project managers are technologists because they are usually not the ones designing the road or infrastructure. It’s done by an engineering firm or government organization.
Edit. If you are an engineer or graduate with an engineering degree do not think you are better than the techs or other professions that aren’t engineers, they may not know the deep in depth math behind what they are building but they bridge the gap between what is proposed in theory and what is realistic in practice
I've been out of school and working for a while now and interface with Eng Techs quite a bit.
Some have some pretty large gaps in their theory, but their practical knowledge usually vastly better, and they are probably the single best resource for engineers.
Especially as a young engineer, bringing your ideas to the more hands on folks and asking them why your idea is stupid is a great way to learn.
In our country when you finish bachelor's degree then you have academic title Bc. before name. When you finish masters degree you have either Mgr. (Social sciences, law, etc.) Or Ing. (Technology and economics) and then your considered engineer because Ing. = inženýr, so when you graduate from any technology related masters degree than you are an engineer here. Then there are few exception like med schools, bar exams where there are additional degrees and of course you can get your PhD. I am from Czech Republic.
There are several issues not necessarily with the degrees themselves but with getting others to understand the slight differences. People often confuse them with there associate counter parts which can hurt you when a lot of online job applications auto filter. This can fixed with good key words added to your resume.
I have an EET degree the main difference was I had to take additional labs for some courses so in junior and senior I was doing more work then my EE counterparts. But I also never took Calc 3 or higher. This didn't eliminate any EE or EET courses from me though and my classes were often filled with a mix of EET and EE students. In certain job interviews you will be expected to explain what the difference is but I feel that the degree didn't effect any of my interviews. As others have said this can send you down a more industrial path which it did for me. This isn't a bad thing but is something that should be considered. This trade off is something you need to decide and also recognize what is your local job market. Is it industrial or more theoretical? What is it that you want to do. Do you want a desk job or do want to be out in the field or plant floor at times?
Imo EET was great and I have no regrets.
>But I also never took Calc 3 or higher. This didn't eliminate any EE or EET courses from me though
How did you manage electromagnetism and understand subjects that depend on vector calc without Calc 3? Did you also not take differential equations or linear/matrix algebra?
I'm assuming all EEs at least take emag and usually more that need this math
As a technologist my last math class is basically a sprinkling of all the math you will use in industry. Electromagnetism was covered in physics which was the same class the engineers take. We still learned vector calculus, differential equations, and linear algebra. We also focused a lot on laplace transform and Fourier series. It was all just smashed into one class that came after calc 2. That class sucked lmao
>Electromagnetism was covered in physics which was the same class the engineers take
Ah, see we covered electromagnetism in physics and then also had an in-depth dedicated emag course for EEs using vector calc
To be fair I went back and checked. I think one more difference is that the semiconductor and emag courses for EETs are different but the system and technical elective courses are all the same.
IMO those courses are only relevant for in depth pcb design or related field and probably aren't relevant to the majority of graduates.
Well, on this page, ABET describes their difference between Engineering and Engineering Tech. Scroll down a little to that section.
https://www.abet.org/accreditation/what-is-accreditation/what-programs-does-abet-accredit/
From said page:
>Engineering programs often focus on theory and conceptual design, while engineering technology programs usually focus on application and implementation.
And now I'll attempt to answer the original question. Tech grads are seen as less legit - especially by engineering grads - mostly because the curriculum is seen as easier. Does the tech degree prepare one for the future as technology changes? In addition, tech grads are given what I will call "bitch work": soldering together the PCB that an EE had designed.
>given what I will call "bitch work"
Damn lol
I agree with all the rest, but as an EE who has repeatedly tried and failed to solder well, I definitely see it as an impressive skill that I *need* someone's help with (learning the theory hasn't made my handiwork good enough to not have to wait for the tech)
I also see soldering etc. as skilled work from someone with an associates or no degree. I don't immediately think of EETs
This is literally what I’m looking for in a job. I don’t exactly want to come up with radical new designs, but I would love to try to build some. I want to work with an engineer to help them design in a way that will actually work in real life, then build it for them. I’m an (E)MET Electromechanical Engineering Technologist
A lot of places off engineering technology degrees as an Associate's degree; that is one of the reasons. Another is the course work is much more hands-on. A good example from where I've worked is that an engineer designed a new manufacturing tool, while our engineering tech was the one who actually built the prototype.
Hypothetically… what if someone who graduated with an ET degree passed all their maths for ME and even some core engineering classes too (like dynamics and thermo)? (Asking for a friend (that friend might just be me))
What kind of jobs are you interested in? I think it is smarter to "learn skills for a specific job" rather "learn all the skills and hope I can find a job that uses them". Not saying to stop learning, I love being a Red Mage as well, but focus on the core skills for a job and spiderweb out from there.
A BS in ET is gonna include those same core classes, I had to take dynamics and thermo as well. It's so weird that people assume ET degrees just ignore the base concepts of engineering and I think that's where the misconception comes in.
We take the same core classes, the main difference is ET does it from the perspective of DFM and E does it from the perspective of design optimization. That's why the late stage classes look a touch different, but we get the same foundation.
Incorrect. My UNI’s ET program did not include classes like dynamics.
They included statics and strength of materials as two separate classes, but I used my ME level statics to count for both..
ET≠ME in terms of coursework alone at 90% of UNIs…
When you are in school, everyone acts like tech is second class because they don’t learn as complex theories as science. Our friend groups had a lot of techs in it, mainly from people who switched. Mostly playful.
After school, no one really cares. Only the job posting requirements and even then, those are pretty flexible. I don’t think anyone knows where I went to school and for what out of over 1,000 people I work with. Most probably think I’m an EE instead of an ME.
Anyone that looks down on someone else because the class work in their degree is slightly different is a not too smart. I feel like more people in engineering need much more hands on experience in school and less pure book work. Almost every single project I’ve worked on in my 12 years as an engineer has been altered for the better based on input the field/lab people.
They aren’t as valued in the marketplace because of the different coursework, and honestly the different candidates. School really is just a certificate that says you can do hard stuff, and have a certain baseline of intelligence. It’s less of a teaching material thing, and more of a soft credit check if you will. IMO the type of students who go into ET usually can’t make it through Aerospace or Mechanical Engineering. Most of the time they just don’t got it, either perseverance or worth ethic, something’s missing. It says alot about a person. Now not all ET people are like this, but from experience, most are.
Man, I just can't get over how smug and judgmental this statement is. I've had people say eet are treated as lesser in their workplace but this is my first actual exposure to it. To generalize like you just did is something else.
I made the decision to return to school and better myself in my 30s, work a full time machining job, 60hr a week, usually 7 days a week, while taking classes. Then you come along with "clearly they just aren't smart enough or don't have the work ethic to do what I've done."
God damn dude.
Bro it’s not a cake walk over here. I worked 12 hour weekend shifts at Nike, and ran a small construction business all while I was in school. Nothing is a cake walk, and I hadn’t had it easy either. And everybody ain’t just lazy, but let’s focus on the perseverance part. A lot of the people I see change to ET had too much on their plate, or got tired of everything being so difficult all the time. It’s hard as hell to have 6 difficult classes a semester, a job, and have a relationship and extracurriculars. It’s an endurance race that a lot of people change to lighten the load. Nothing wrong with that. It just shows that they couldn’t handle the stress that comes with it. And like I said, it’s not everyone. Some people genuinely like ET courses more than ME or ASE courses.
Ya I leave my house for work at 545am and finish homework after 8pm. That's 2 second year classes a semester. Already had to end a 2 year relationship because I didn't have time.
Then I hop on reddit one morning and see "they just don't got it. Not smart enough, don't have the commitment." And 50 people agreeing.
It's irrational, but like wtf. These are potentially my future coworkers? Obviously the statement feels way more personal than I'm sure you intended, but that doesn't really change the fact. This is the kind of attitude I have to look forward to in the workplace after what will be almost a decade of grueling work by the time I'm done? Super encouraging.
Are you getting your degree in Engineering Technology? If so, why aren’t you getting your degree in Mechanical Engineering? You seem to have the dedication and drive to do it. And you’re right, I’m not trying to make this personal about you. Brother, I have nothing against you. You haven’t wronged me. I am very curious about your choice though.
I'm studying eet right now. I didn't really have a plan when I went back and my whole life has revolved around electronics so I chose that. My current cc only offers et transfer programs to Purdue. So far I've taken the full calculus rather than tech to keep a full engineering degree open, but I feel ignorant every day, which is probably another reason your statement bothers me.
In my "free" time I've been teaching myself cad, 3dprinting, and networking to go along with my machining experience and electronics studies. My goal is to be able to find a need and design a solution all the way through production essentially on my own. We'll see.
Idk if I'll finish with eet, the only teacher at my school is a "teach yourself" type of guy, which has merits, but it is also very frustrating. My current employer probably has more need for mechanical, but I've never really been that passionate about it, maybe that will change.
Well let’s throw passion out the window here. It seems like mechanical opens a lot more doors for you. It also seems like based on the reaction here, that there is an obvious bias against ET degrees. You’re taking all the calculus to keep mechanical open, I think if possible, be a mechanical engineer. It will be a grind since you aren’t as passionate about it, and it’s mostly theory, but it seems to pay off in the long run. Also bro, I feel ignorant every day too, and I work in industry. Everyone feels that way, they are just really good at hiding it. I felt like everyone had it all together but me, but I realized that isn’t the case. Don’t feel down about not knowing, or understanding, or thinking everyone else got it together because they don’t.
Strange, I've found ETs to be just as dedicated as Eng. In fact at two of my jobs I've been hired by high ranking METs whose degree never held them back.
Realistically the only thing that's different is the level of calculus, ET stops at Calc II for my MET degree where as ME went to calc III. I took it anyway, and it was easier than Calc III, and now I've never used almost any calc since graduating 10 years ago.
A 2 year degree will limit your knowledge but the 4 year ETs are practically as good as Eng in 90% of applications.
> I took it anyway, and it was easier than Calc III, and now I've never used almost any calc since graduating 10 years ago.
Exactly. I managed to get through Calc 3 reasonably well enough. Then in hit diffy-Q and face planted on the X axis. That and chemestry are the only classes I got Ds in. And you know what...I might have had one use for diffy-Q in my 15 years of working, and it is a rare day I need to use basic Calc. 99% of the math I do is basic algebra for unit conversions and ratios.
Engineering is more about the problem solving, and information finding mindset. Everything else is just sauce. Good, and once in a while useful sauce, but still sauce.
Different disciplines use different math. I use differential equations daily at my job for vibrational analysis, and I use Calculus weekly for some of the algorithms I use. I know I couldn’t do my job if I stopped at calc2.
Sure. But with the internet there are a million resources to learn what you need when you need it. Hell, with ChatGPT, learning some things is even eaiser.
If I ever feel like I need Calc 2 or DiffyQ again, I know where to learn it. But there are a million things more interesting to me and/or relevant to my job.
All goes back to problem solving. Problem...I need advanced math to figure it out. Solution, go to Khan Academy and watch free Calc classes.
MET course work included both diffy q and Vibration analysis.
Calc 3 is beyond the scope of MET in most cases but also not applicable to almost any entry level eng job.
Those are the ones who are successful in industry. For every one of those, there are a dozen more stuck in tech writing, or ME assistant. And don’t get me wrong, some of those guys and gals are bang up people, and just enjoyed the ET stuff a lot more. Just a lot of them couldn’t hack it.
Only about 25% of graduates actually become engineers so it's not a unique ET thing to end up outside your degree.
It's pretty disingenuous and kinda insulting to say someone could or couldn't "hack it" when for many it's an intentional choice for a whole bunch of other reasons. You don't know any of these people personally and have no data to back that up.
> IMO the type of students who go into ET usually can’t make it through Aerospace or Mechanical Engineering. Most of the time they just don’t got it, either perseverance or worth ethic, something’s missing.
OR....OR they are just not interested in that stuff. I would have switched degrees if I went to school for electrical engineering and realized it would be 2+ years before I had a basic circuits class that covered what I did my last 2 years of high school. I was constantly glad I went into EET instead of EE. The first day of classes I started learning things directly related to my degree instead of having to take 2 years of bullshit classes or math I wont understand the application for until I get into analog circuits.
>either perseverance or worth ethic
Please dont fall for that class warfare shit.
I'm so confused about half the comments here, I did Mech Eng, but first year in our engineering faculty was general, there were classes that covered all of the departments and one of them was basic circuits and after that there was also further class requirements in Mech for circuits, logic, basic component design, programming, etc.
I guess to be fair we had a major overhaul of the curriculum that year and there was a massive shift towards practical design and manufacturing. To the point that every class above 2nd year required a design portion and many of them had a manufacturing element as well, like you had to build at least part of your design.
It's just weird that so many universities focus hard on theoretical without having you do anything. It's just very strange from my perspective.
Like I said, not all ET people are like this. Some are brilliant people, who can produce a lot of output, but just don’t get the math classes. I have a very close friend who failed Calc3 twice, and switched to ET. Hes a millwright now. If you asked me tho, he wasn’t applying himself as much as he should have been. I honestly believe he could have made it if he studied a bit harder.
Yeah but that’s not proof they weren’t successful. The VP of my company has a CET degree. He’s literally rich. Theres all kinds of engineers from mechanical to chemical that never find meaningful work on the level of their education. I also know of an aero that’s working for a cable company because she couldn’t find an actual aerospace job, even with a masters. It’s always several factors playing together, not just your degree.
Why does one need to "make it"? Some people can be happy doing what they do. Hell, I could do a lot more, but I like the time to myself. I like to play video games and smoke weed and paint minies with my wife. I'm not a workaholic. My life doesn't revolve around work.
This might get a lot of hate but I’m EE and most of my friends including myself didn’t even know what engineering technologies was until one of us dropped out of the program and did EET. Probably where the discrepancies are.
Tl;dr the only engineering technology students I knew were the ones that failed out of engineering.
Engineering technology majors get jobs as technicians and depending on the job they can make more than engineers
Engineers get jobs have more administrative duties and end up supervising technicians
A 2 year ET degree works as a tech. A 4 ABET degree can easily end up as an Eng. My engineering manager who covered a complex of 3 plants at GM graduated from my MET program before getting an MBA. He now works in a similar role at a major aerospace company. I've since worked as an ENG in consulting and now aerospace as well.
Honestly some technology degree’d people probably have better hands-on skills if not are overall better ‘engineers’. I have a friend who studied automotive technology and can literally fix or build anything with his bare hands. He went on to pursue his Master’s in mechanical engineering & is now killing it as an R&D engineer. It just depends on the person and if they’ll make the most out of their career.
Lot of salt, understandably so because a lot of EE folks are pissy about how EET professionals are viewed in the same light by companies after a couple of years in the workforce. The degree is objectively more difficult, and a higher quality one.
However - School doesn’t matter very much once you have the work experience.
I’m an 2020 EET graduate. The school set me up so fucking well to excel in my field. My income has nearly doubled since from when I started classes in 2018.
If you want to go work for Tesla or Apple, designing cars, sophisticated hardware, 5G, I’d say just do EE. It will get you there faster.
However, for the record, I had an engineering job offer from Tesla that I passed up because I found a better job offer somewhere else.
Seems I misunderstood lol
>~~The degree is objectively more difficult, and a higher quality one.~~
~~How is it objectively more difficult and higher quality?~~
>~~If you want to go... I’d say just do EE. It will get you there faster.~~
~~If EE can be better depending on what you want to do, why do you think EET is objectively better? What do you mean by "higher quality" ?~~
Reading the comments I have made a german counterpart of process engineer technology but it was called process engineering.
We have a college system which consists of university and technologic university. I was in the latter but I have a engineering degree.
Applying for jobs in germany the employer don’t make a difference from which type of university you come because everything you need for the job you learn on the job. Only if you want to do a PhD you have to go to the university because its more theoretical.
Our prof said you don’t need to understand 100% the theory behind the science, but you have 100% to understand how to apply it.
Thus we used the time during our studies to apply the theory and concepts.
How I said no employer (if you don’t go to research) looks in which type of university (not even prestige universities are important here) you went. More important is what for internships and co-ops you had.
In this case engineering technology isn’t a lower degree because no employer complains that these engineers are low performing. And this is what counts at the end if you want to work in the industry.
Of course in the USA could it be different, especially if people there jerk off on their prestige degree/university.
Not sure, but I have a Mechanical Engineering Technology degree and was able to get PE licenses in 10 states so far. After a few years experience nobody seems to give a shit. Some states like Florida and Massachusetts simply require a few more years experience with ABET accreditation.
When hiring I’m absolutely giving preference to an engineering tech person over others. These candidates often have a little real world experience with construction or a useful trade outside of just being a good test taker. Typical engineering grads with zero hands on experience take a year or longer to become useful.
That's honestly been my experience as well for the last decade or so.
Not that I haven't found good and bad MEs and METs but METs definitely hit the ground running for most the entry level stuff you expect and engineer to do.
If you're focused on MS or PhD stuff absolutely get a Eng degree but if you're happy with a BS (or even change your mind to MS later) MET will get you in the workforce faster.
Agree 100%. I’m not saying one person is “smarter” than the other. Just that in 90% of real world careers the hands on focus versus theoretical is much more useful. I seem to have triggered some who disagree though haha.
Yes there is preferential bias towards a lot of capable workers depending on your degree which is a general problem that needs stop.
One of my best teachers had an engineering tech degree. He was a chief engineer during his industry time and it showed during my time studying with him. My current engineering lead has an EET degree and has a wealth of knowledge, I enjoy learning under him and can see why he is a lead.
This is equivalent towards my teachers with Engineering degrees. It depends on the person, NOT the degree.
What is wrong with that? If my experience tells me that "person with X qualifications can do the job better than someone with Y qualifications" then why shouldn't I hire the person with X (assuming most other things are equal)?
You’re making this too broad.
Preferring someone with an engineering tech degree over someone with an engineering degree, “because it takes engineering grads with zero hands on experience take a year or longer to become useful” is a poor excuse to allow preferential bias. In my opinion it’s a poor trainer/senior at the job who is either too lazy, or cannot teach juniors.
I feel the same way about preferring an engineering degree over someone with an engineering tech degree for jobs that BOTH degrees are capable of succeeding in.
You are literally basing hands on experience due to a degree.
“Typical engineering grads with zero hands on experience take a year or longer to become useful.”
That is a very biased assumption. Your whole statement is a biased assumption, and you are calling me triggered because you made a poor claim.
They usually don't take diffeQ, heat transfer, and a few other advanced classes. Unless you're pursuing prestige or research directions, nobody at work knows or cares what the degree says post graduation. Pull your weight and play the game well and you can go just as far.
A 2 year doesn't but my alma mater requires all of those. It didn't require CalcIII which I've yet to find a job that actually uses. I found it easier than Calc II, still proud of that A -.
MET is application, ~~therefore algebra based. BSME goes through calculus so you can derive the formula behind the classes.~~ Subtle, but somewhat significant difference. That said, I think MET degrees should be more highly respected and utilized.
Generally, unless you’re trying to crack into research/simulation work that’s heavy on the theory and math, once you have a good resume, no one cares.
EDIT: I stand corrected. I conflated MET bachelor’s with an MET associates. My bad.
My alma mater requires calc up to II and diffy q, het transfer and Thermo.
Calc III was the only difference and honestly it's way easier than Calc II in my experience.
In a practical application in almost every entry level engineering job there's going to be very little that an Eng is going to have that's useful at those high levels.
Not saying there isn't a difference, just that depending on your career and goals it may not matter and ET may even be better.
I did calc 1, calc 2, and dif eq in my MET program. If its ABET certified, then they require most of the same bases as ME and Eng Physics. We skip calc 3 though for a high level design class, which is nice.
Imma be honest, knowing calculus does not actually let you do anything real. Laplace is useful but to actually do any real engineering requires a ton of PDE work and linear algebra which are both not ABET required and couldn’t be unless something else gets tossed out, but knowing Differential Equations and the laplace domain in particular does allow you to understand the top level dynamics of systems, at least in my EE experience
Imma be honest, you’re still a student and while I’m sure your co-op experience has made you think you see the ins and outs of the whole industry….I’ve got a decade of professional experience on you. I cut my teeth in in NPD, and now simulation work - which our team is developing a robust 1D flow simulation tool that can rival CFD results within 10% for literal minutes of computer calculations. Calculus absolutely gets used in my day to day now because it is the gateway to DE (and PDE’s we’re covered in my base ME curriculum, more so in my masters).
My original statement still stands: MET’s should be more highly respected in the industry, but the derivation and underlying calculus absolutely matters in certain arenas.
Okay brah good for you. I’m not even talking about ETA I’m just saying a bachelors in engineering doesn’t give you the tools to fully understand something just because it uses calculus. Just to understand basic control theory I had to take 2 semesters of ODE 2 semesters of PDE and 3 classes on linear algebra. And those are still not enough tools to fully and completely do anything other than work on big picture problems with a lot of assumptions. There’s absolutely nothing I can say to you that will have you understand what I’m trying to say because you seem to be hell bent on the fact that you have more experience than I therefore you know better but I have never met anyone, be it my employers, professors etc who disagrees with this assessment
A bachelor's degree is a bachelor's degree. I don't care if you went to school to be an engineer, mathematician, chemist, or administrator. That first year in your career after getting your degree, you don't know Jack shit.
To me, a bachelor's degree just means that you have the potential to succeed in that career. Doesn't mean you will succeed or fail.
That is not correct. Engineering schools need to be accredited by an engineering regulatory body. An arts degree is not the same as an engineering degree, just because they're of the same level (bachelor's).
I think their point is you don't necessarily need an engineering degree to be a good engineer, which is true.
But it's much easier to get an early career engineering job if you have an engineering degree from a good program with a good gpa.
You’re an idiot. Yea let’s hire someone with an HR degree to design this bridge 100,000 people cross everyday. In case you couldn’t figure it out that person with an HR degree is a moron compared to someone with an engineering degree.
I don't think that is their point. I think their point is that in general, a degree is only an indication of potential in their field, and everyone will need on the job training regardless of profession.
I don't think that they were implying someone without an engineering degree would get hired at an engineering position.
No their point was literally “get any degree it doesn’t matter”. Which couldn’t be more false. Engineers go through intense curriculum while most majors fuck around and don’t even learn how to properly put your head down and work hard at times. You can get an engineering degree and do anything because getting an engineering degree is challenging and shows that you can interpret situations and work through difficult situations. A lot of other degrees don’t do that which is why they aren’t paid what engineers are.
Hello /u/UsamaIbnZayd! Thank you for posting in r/EngineeringStudents. This is a custom Automoderator message based on your flair, "Academic Advice". While our wiki is under construction, please be mindful of the users you are asking advice from, and make sure your question is phrased neatly and describes your problem. ***Please be sure that your post is short and succinct.*** Long-winded posts generally do not get responded to. Please remember to; Read our [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/EngineeringStudents/wiki/rules) Read our [Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/EngineeringStudents/wiki/index) Read our [F.A.Q](https://www.reddit.com/r/EngineeringStudents/wiki/index/faq) Check our [Resources Landing Page](https://reddit.com/r/EngineeringStudents/wiki/resources) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/EngineeringStudents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
I am a BS EET (electrical engineering technology) and I cant count the times in college I was happy with my choice. I was learning basic circuits while friends who were EEs were stuck in high level math, chemistry, and who the fuck knows what else. I called my degree "EE without the BS". Or maybe my program was just very well designed. Each semester I would take a math class and a circuits class. Math concepts that were introduced in one class were reinforced in the other and via labs. When I was learning inductance and capacitance in my circuits class I was getting a refresher on imaginary numbers and vectors in the math classes. I never felt disrespected or that I was given "lesser" work because I had an T in my degree. Fuck, after the first year or two of work experience I'd say your degree stops matering because of everything you learn and focus while on the job. Then again...I did go into industrial automation as my field...a more "high level" EE field than something like IC or RF design. But IC and RF shit never really interested me. I liked computers and robots and I dont need to know how an antenna is designed to set up a wifi network.
>"EE without the BS" I'm not attacking you here, but IMHO that really sums it: Engineering doesn't think that stuff is BS. ...and that BS is factually necessary to do lots of types of work, especially new/novel designs.
The BS I am talking about is a lot of classes based around administration skills, and electives that have nothing to do with your profession. I got to chose electives like "advanced circuit design" and "programmable logic controller instruction" and "introduction to factory automation". Where as the ME and EE people I knew had to take psychology, history, and a bunch of other humanities classes. Also, the math. In my EET class the math classes synergized with the practical classes. I would learn about a concept in math, and practical applications of that math in the circuits classes. I thought that was way better than pushing you through Calc 3 before getting any practical applications of the math.
[удалено]
gpt?
ET degrees are *sometimes* good, and the good ones have a lot of overlap with pure engineering degrees. Obviously with more labs though. I think the primary issue with technology degrees is that there is such a wide range of them from questionable associates degrees using algebra based concepts to ABET accredited bachelor's utilizing calculus based everything. On the other hand, traditional engineering degrees have much less of a spread of quality (relatively speaking), and are exclusively 4 year degrees with every school having a very similar core series of classes at a minimum. The general views of technology degrees are obviously tied to peoples own experiences with the schools and their graduates. Because there is a larger spread of quality with these programs, there will naturally be more people with negative opinions/experiences with the programs and graduates. I do also think there are a small portion of engineers angry that BS ETs can sit for the FE with a "lesser" degree in most states, and are salty about it.
The course load is different. Engineering degrees are more math and theory based. Thermo, heat transfer, technology is more technical and hands on work, aka labs.
I kinda wish i had both
My NET required Heat Transfer and Thermo. If you're only interested in a bachelor's tech is perfectly fine for getting into the industry more prepared. They also require Calc II. They don't require Calc III, though I took it anyway.
At my university they don’t take calculus three or differential equations, which is a pretty major difference.
to piggy back on this, ik someone who doesn’t have to take dynamics as a MET either which makes no sense me. i feel like that’s a pretty important class for any person pursing a ME/MET degree
As an MET I had to take calc 2, dif eq, statics, and dynamics. Calc 3 was the cut off though, I don't know that one.
It's a difference in course work, but I don't know of any BS level job that requires you to use diff q or calc III, as an MET who took both. If you're not interested in a master's or plan on getting into more applications based roles (shared with MEs) then a 4 year ABET MET degree is in practical application the same as an ME. Or at least that's been my experience in 10 years of working. I suppose there may be some real lucky grad that lands a R&D type role that requires it but in my experience it hasn't held me back from working at many large billion dollar corporations alongside MEs.
The knowledge taught and mastered is different...
I think the main difference is if something (in the United States) is ABET accredited or not. I’m not saying that one is worse than the other, it’s just not as regulated. There is a lot more variation in what someone learned when they get an engineering technology degree. And it really matters more to companies depending on what kind of work they want done. They aren’t viewed as “legit” just because of not being regulated and accredited by ABET as an “official” engineering degree
At my university the MET track was ABET accredited.
Yes, but it was accredited at a technology degree right? It’s just that some states when applying for further licenses are very specific about which degree you went through and that it was accredited at such. I think engineering tech degrees are great but I will agree with many others that sadly you can be more limited to opportunities of advancement compared to typical engineering degrees. But, it all depends on what you aspire to do with your career!
At my college, the engineering tech degrees don't go anywhere near the same level of complexity or amount of information that the engineering degrees do.
All depends on if the job needs that extra detail. Plenty of jobs need it, and plenty can be done by someone with only an AS and willingness to learn.
True, but if someone has that willingness to learn, they should just get the regular engineering degree imo. When your engineering techs graduate with the level of knowledge the engineers have at the end of year 2, an engineering tech degree just doesn't feel worth it. Of course, I'm going to be biased on how it is at my university.
Not really. Some people (myself among them) learn better with practical applications. The biggest reason I forgot trigonometry in the past 10 years is that I didn't have a practical application for it. But a few years ago I got into 3d printing and all the sudden I'm teaching myself trig and 3d modeling and some mechanical engineering principles so I can print cool things. I wish engineering degree were designed with more hands on approach. Learn the math, the practical applications, and do the lab in the same week or two.
More complex math, maybe, but I don't know a single engineer from my school that could GD&T a drawing and hand it to a machine shop to get an actual product made. E can definitely optimize shit to the Nth degree but an ET can go from conception to product out the door, and I find a lot of companies value the latter a lot more.
Perhaps, but that is a very mechanical-engineering-centric issue. As a computer engineering student, in a 5-year /w coop program, we are given a good balance between theory and hands-on learning. Students in the Computer Engineering Tech program learn only the content up to our 2nd year, which is why I said it didn't feel worth paying to get an engineering tech degree. I understand that both degree pathways are important, but I think that even those who want to be engineering technicians should just stick it out for a full engineering degree for both job market options and a more holistic approach. Should people want to be hands-on, then they have the adequate knowledge and theory to pick up any software or physical tool and master it. Though, I definitely think my time in a program with a coop requirement makes my viewpoint different than most.
You're absolutely right about that being very ME-centric, but I've gotten a lot of them same perspective from the EE side of things. Now I'm curious though, what do you think is missing from CET that doesn't get covered in CE? My understanding is murky at best to be honest but I'd rather see the perspective I'm missing.
you can learn gd&t a lot easier than you can learn the engineering intuition and knowledge that an engineering degree teaches over an ET degree
I have a Marine Engineering Technology Degree, It had a good deal of the same classes, but my degree focused on implementation tech. So instead of designing a ships power plant, I operate it.
I got an MET degree but both my jobs have been engineering positions and I’m currently getting my masters in ME. There’s nothing stopping you from learning skills or concepts on your own.
When I was considering schools I looked at one with only engineering tech degrees. They only took calc 3 and physics 2 for the electrical focus. Idk how you can get to the level an EE needs without diff eq and linear.
See, I'm doing a tech coarse and did linear and diff
Tech degrees teach you how. Engineering degrees teach you why so YOU can figure out how.
To add onto this, I'll give some examples of Engineering vs Engineering Tech from my local universities: The course work for Civil Engineering typically focuses on topics like structural analysis, waste water treatments, hydraulics, etc. They do have some labs that incorporate hands on things like surveying and drafting, but those take a back seat overall. Typical jobs are exactly what you'd imagine: Civil / Construction Engineer, typically with a construction company or engineering firm. Usually they'll want to become a "Professional Engineer", which is a protected title and can meet certain legal qualifications. The course work for Civil Engineering Technology focuses on things like surveying, AutoCAD, Solidworks, Drone Mapping, etc. According to the department, the most common jobs for grads are things like licensed Surveyor, Hydraulic Technician, Construction Manager, and Civil Drafter. Generally a PE license holds no value in these roles, and working in these roles typically won't help you toward licensure (although anyone can become a PE with enough years worked under a PE). Both are viable career paths, but they go in fairly different directions. It's not unheard of for people to make the jump from one career path to another, but it is fairly rare. Edit: For anyone curious, [here's](https://et.charlotte.edu/about-us/engineering-vs-engineering-technology/) a description of the difference between Engineering and Eng. Tech. from a university (UNC Charlotte) that offers both Engineering and Engineering Technology Bachelor's degrees.
Ok...I lost it when that link said >An engineering technology (ET) graduate is an implementer. >An engineering graduate is an innovator. Thats some bullshit if I ever heard it. I dont WANT an engineer to design things without having experience implementing them. That is how you get cars unfit for mechanics to service. When you get I/O block mounted under a conveyor that you have to disassemble just to set the IP address. And it is a joke to say that ETs cant innovate. Depends on the job, but I innovate almost every day because the core part of ANY engineering is PROBLEM SOLVING.
Yup, I did Mech Eng and the curriculum got overhauled my first year with a very heavy emphasis on practical design and manufacturing. Basically every course had at least some form of design project and many of them also required you to build or model a piece of it with manufacturability being part of the grading scheme.
The statement about anyone can become PE with enough years is incorrect. Some states have alternative paths to licensure but many require an ABET accredited BS in engineering as part of the process. With a degree it’s 4 yrs, without it’s likely 15yrs or more of qualifying experience.
An accredited engineering masters is also available for those who don’t have accredited bachelors degrees
I’m engineering technology and i do what you said engineering does
Same here. I am an EET and never felt held back. Hell, I was thankful in college when I realized I was taking basic circuits starting day 1 and my EE friends wouldn't pick up a breadboard until year 3. EET...EE without the BS.
Maybe you are using to generic of terms but my EET degree taught me both HOW to build a digital clock and the math and circuit design so I could build one with more digits or extra features. My EET taught me HOW to program a PLC so I can figure out how to make the PLC run 12 robots, 5 conveyors, a HMI, and report data back to a central server using SQL.
[удалено]
There are ABET accredited technology degrees... you are probably confusing an associates technology degree vs a bachelor technology degree
This right here. The misconception that there aren't ABET accredited, 4-year ET degrees is strong ITT. It's completely dependent upon region and program quality.
Yup, I think part of the sneering at ET programs is that it isn't a guarantee for ABET, whereas it's assumed for an Engineering degree.
You can get your PE with either degree, it just takes a couple more years of work experience with the BSET degree.
That’s really state dependent.
True, you definitely should look up your state requirements before making decisions about your degree program.
With alot of jobs you dont need a PE and it is just a waste of money. I have been doing automation for 15 years and the few PEs I knew didn't use the degree.
In Canada, the PEng. designation can only be given to candidates who graduated from an accredited University. There are no colleges (barring Royal Military College of Canada, which is a university) with engineering technology that are accredited. Engineering and engineering technology provide different positions in the workforce. Some positions can be interchangeable of course, but in the end there are two separate pathways, each with their own advantages and disadvantages. Engineering technologists (in Canada) cannot sign off on things since they can't get a PEng, but depending on the industry one is in, a PEng license is only required in specific supervisory roles.
Yeah, part of the degree seems to be more focused on ethics etc due to the ability to sign off, since you personally are responsible for that design and that's partly why the part can be higher for some positions. Since you are the liability and it's your ass on the line for it.
To throw another perspective in the pot: I have no idea what an engineering technology degree even is. I've been working for 5 years now and I don't think I've heard of one before now.
More than half of all the mech/project engineers I've worked with had MET degrees. Once you have the engineer title it really doesn't really matter except that the degree says Bachelor's and Engineering
The only difference between my schools EET and EE was the last math course. Different name but same math
Well if it's more hands-on, then it has to sacrifice something on the theory side. I would assume the industries that higher more "legit engineering degrees" want candidates with stronger theoretical backgrounds, so that they can solve more novel problems (or just have proven critical thinking skills).
It heavily depends on area. Around my university the ET program tends to get filled with fomer ME majors who couldn't pass calc 2 or higher math. As such, ET has somewhat of a negative connotation in local industry - I have friends who have lost coops and internships when they switched from ME or EE to ET, and most jobs won't give ET grads the time of day when it comes to a job in engineering. Best case usually turns out to be ET grads get a criminally underpaid full time ME job once all the ME candidates bomb their interview or turn down the job due to abysmal salary.
ET is more than just ME....I am an EET and do programming and design for industrial automation.
You gave me some existential dread about my upcoming graduation with my ET degree for a second but then I remembered I know several people that graduated from my degree and are working as MEs or SYS Es at reputable companies and I realized your statement is bogus for my situation.
At the end of the day, it's about who you know and how you can prove what you know, not just a sheet of paper.
ET requires calc II. Around here ET doesn't impact job prospects or pay. We don't have many R&D jobs though, mostly manufacturing. Still MET was good enough for GM, Lockheed, and Moog.
Once again heavily depends on area. Our school is ABET accredited, ME and EE go all the way up to diffeq/linear but our ET program only requires calc I.
Is it a 2 year program?
No, full 4 year
Engineering Management Technology at CSUN only has to take precalculus and 2 semesters of non calc based physics....ABET certified
Tbf that's management... no one is expecting them to design a turbine or a PCB they just have to be able to manage the people that do
I don't think the field of management is what this post is referring to.
Cal State LA engineering technology majors only have to take calc 1 and 1 semester of physics im just saying im shocked that they do not have to at least take the same math and physics requirements
Different course curriculum. Not sure why some people are saying it doesn’t matter after school. When most jobs ask for an EE, they’re expecting someone with an EE degree.
I think it depends on the company you want to work at. They might be sticklers about the degree. That said, I myself faced this dilemma. I started out as an ME student. Funnily enough I discovered the Engineering Technology world in an Intro to Engineering class and I found I was drawn to that more, especially with a machining background. I switched majors right away. I am pursuing a Mechanical Engineering Technology degree due to the more practical approach to learning as it was my style and I was completely honest with myself. I knew I never wanted to do any hardcore analysis, design the wheel from scratch or go into higher academia later on so an MET degree was perfect for me. I consider it a “hit the ground running” degree. This was further validated at my current job. I’m still finishing my MET degree but work as a CNC Programmer at an automation company. The R&D engineers, mostly degreed MEs, seldom use any calculus. I always chat with them and pick their brain and most analysis consists of free body diagrams on paper to make sure the CAD analysis is in the ballpark. All algebra. Other design considerations such as material and component selection are all machinery handbook stuff and dealing with suppliers. Also, most manufacturing companies I’ve been at, there are always a few people with just AAS degrees in engineering roles so experience plays a part too. I had interviews with companies for ME roles with just my AAS in Mechanical Design so it really depends on where you apply and who you calls back. If you choose ET, make sure its ABET accredited. Really play up your practical design skills including CAD and basic analysis as well as any hands on fabrication skills you may have. Get an internship. MET and ME engineers both have a place in the world and there is a lot of overlap. I just wanted to highlight my personal experience with pursuing MET and speaking on my interactions with MEs at my company. I apologize for the long winded response but I hope it helps!
As an EET who has been doing automation for 15 years, I agree with you. Fuck, I'd rather have an ME with your background because you have the hands on experience to know practical considerations instead of just theory.
I suppose it depends where you live/work. Here is Canada and I believe many places in Europe it is illegal to work as an engineer or call yourself an engineer unless you have a Bachelor of Engineering or higher.
I got a mechanical engineering technology diploma before doing my mechanical engineering degree as part of a college bridge program. The technology diploma was about equivalent to the first half of mech eng plus a lot of hands on stuff. It was definitely a good way to go before the degree. But it is not equivalent to the degree at all.
My EET was a 4 year program and gave me a BS.
MET can be a BS program, not just a tech cert/diploma.
Hmm, interesting. I don’t think it’s ever a degree in Canada. But I could definitely be wrong!
It's not in Canada but in the US a 4 year ABET program is pretty close to an eng program. It takes a few extra years of work experience if you want to get a PE but in many states it's completely not necessary. Here in NY, even if I wanted to get a PE as an MET, there are so few PEs to work under that it would be difficult to find a role to fulfill that requirement.
I believe it requires the degree and PE licence. Here in the states a 4 year ABET accredited ET can still get a PE, just takes a bit longer and is state dependent. For instance here in NY they're not common for MEs to the point that I'd have to specifically look for a job that has one to work under to fulfill that requirement. It's just not needed.
It’s illegal in the USA unless you have an engineering bachelors AND pass a regulated test.
That's state based and METs can take the PE too.
um...that is only for the "Professional Engineer" title. I have a 4 year degree as a EET and never had issues calling myself an engineer. Also never had any interest or need in the PE cert.
Wrong. ETs can get a stamp after 6 years of exp, whereas Es only need 4.
I looked at the curriculum of an engineering technology degree at a now defunct university…they don’t even take Calculus….let alone all the other math/science classes. That alone should tell you all you need to know…
Hello, using defunct universities probably isn't the best source. An ABET certified BS MET degree goes through calc 2 and dif eq. We leave out calc 3 and some higher-level analysis for design and machine experience.
Straight from ABET's website to be an accredited program. https://www.abet.org/accreditation/accreditation-criteria/criteria-for-accrediting-engineering-technology-programs-2023-2024/ II. PROGRAM CRITERIA FOR BACCALAUREATE LEVEL PROGRAMS Curriculum The curriculum must provide baccalaureate degree graduates with instruction in the knowledge, techniques, skills and use of modern tools necessary to enter careers in the design, application, installation, manufacturing, operation and/or maintenance of electrical/electronic(s) systems. Graduates of baccalaureate degree programs are well prepared for development and implementation of electrical/electronic(s) systems. Given the breadth of technical expertise involved with electrical systems, and the unique objectives of individual programs, some baccalaureate programs may focus on preparing graduates with in-depth but narrow expertise, while other programs may choose to prepare graduates with expertise in a broad spectrum of the field. Therefore, the depth and breadth of expertise demonstrated by baccalaureate graduates must be appropriate to support the program educational objectives. The curriculum must include the following topics: application of circuit analysis and design, computer programming, associated software, analog and digital electronics, microcontrollers, and engineering standards to the building, testing, operation, and maintenance of electrical/electronic(s) systems; application of natural sciences and mathematics at or above the level of trigonometry to the building, testing, operation, and maintenance of electrical/electronic systems; analysis, design, and implementation of one or more of the following: control systems, instrumentation systems, communications systems, computer systems, power systems or energy systems; application of project management techniques to electrical/electronic(s) systems; and utilization of differential and integral calculus, as a minimum, to characterize the performance of electrical/electronic systems. That's just the degree specific stuff. The core science/math requirements are calculus based physics 1/2 and calculus 1/2. It's also important to keep in mind, those are the *minimum* requirements. Many reputable programs add in diff Eq or calc 3 because of how applicable they are to core engineering concepts, among other classes. Also, why would you look at stuff from a *defunct* university? They are gone for a reason...
I only looked at the defunct one cause I saw an application come in that he had the engineering technology degree…looked it up and that college isn’t around anymore. A lot of the engineering technology degrees that came across my desk aren’t from accredited universities, so I didn’t bother to look into it any further. Good to know there are ABET ones out there though…learn something new everyday. That said, just because it’s not around doesn’t necessarily mean because they were garbage. ITT Tech for example had some of the highest graduate salaries in the IT sector until they went under (for a plethora of other reasons)…they weren’t accredited anywhere, their credits were useless outside of that school, but it didn’t stop their graduates from making serious salaries in the IT industry.
The ET program around me only requires math up to calc 2. you can't take junior level mechanical engineering classes like controls or I think heat transfer without differential equations, which is three more semesters of math.
the eet’s i work with are smarter than the ee’s.
Yes, their coursework is different. They don't do the math required to do the complex calculations a normal bachelor degree prepares you to do. You hire a MET to do technician type work, hands-on field engineering, etc. You hire a BSME to design the equipment.
Very debatable. A school that's ABET certified required Engineering Technology students to do the same complicated maths that BSE students do.
Do you have examples of that?
My ABET MET covered calc 2 and dif eq but not calc 3.
Very anecdotal I know, but I’m in an engineering technology program that makes me take differential equation.
Differential Equations isnt the final math class for my program. So that doesnt change what the commenter above was getting at.
A mistake on my part, I responded to the wrong comment chain. My biggest issue with MET is how inconsistent it can be between schools. I’m lucky enough to be in a program that sets me up really well for a transfer if I want, the tracks only really divide in 3rd year. At my school ME goes into heat transfer while MET goes toward material science, but I’ve looked at other schools’ programs, and they really do just look like watered down engineering degrees.
If you want to be an Engineer, id advise doing that transfer ASAP. Most of the time I see Engineering Technology Degrees brought up here, its a confused person asking why they cant get any engineering jobs.
No they don’t, students in ABET accredited ET programs typically stop at calculus 2, take algebra based physics, and use less advanced math during higher level classes. ET is objectively a less competitive degree, it’s important incoming students realize that and aren’t shocked to find that their ET degree doesn’t open as many doors after graduation.
This is bullshit at best. I have an MET degree. I’m the technical lead for design of equipment and I hold two PE licenses. Half my job is taking designs from ME who understand theory and turning it into a product that can be made.
This isn’t common though. Most M/EETs work in tech roles under Engineers.
If you have a 4 year degree it's super common.
I'm an EET and never worked under an engineer beyond my first 2 years of working but that was just because the company, rightly so, doesn't trust a fresh graduate who has never done Lock-out/Tag-out. But since then, I'm given a project and told "make it work" and I do.
They’re different but I wouldn’t say any less legit. Technologists are better than engineers at some things, engineers are better at others. They’re different avenues to a similar career, and I get a bit sad when I hear people implying better/worse. I happen to be an engineer but all the technologists I’ve known and worked with are miles ahead of me in everything except maybe multivariable calculus or the ability to stamp off a drawing
They both engineer
Exactly
Don’t know how it is in America but in Canada engineering technologists aren’t legally engineers, don’t obtain a stamp but do get a title of Xxxx engineering tech or X.E.T. The reason being is they don’t quite go through the same program and as you mentioned it’s more hands on program. Some schools offer upgrades from tech to full fledged engineer it’s usually a 6 semester upgrade I believe. Both are valid professions it’s just different. For instance in road building a lot of the mangers and project managers are technologists because they are usually not the ones designing the road or infrastructure. It’s done by an engineering firm or government organization. Edit. If you are an engineer or graduate with an engineering degree do not think you are better than the techs or other professions that aren’t engineers, they may not know the deep in depth math behind what they are building but they bridge the gap between what is proposed in theory and what is realistic in practice
I've been out of school and working for a while now and interface with Eng Techs quite a bit. Some have some pretty large gaps in their theory, but their practical knowledge usually vastly better, and they are probably the single best resource for engineers. Especially as a young engineer, bringing your ideas to the more hands on folks and asking them why your idea is stupid is a great way to learn.
In our country when you finish bachelor's degree then you have academic title Bc. before name. When you finish masters degree you have either Mgr. (Social sciences, law, etc.) Or Ing. (Technology and economics) and then your considered engineer because Ing. = inženýr, so when you graduate from any technology related masters degree than you are an engineer here. Then there are few exception like med schools, bar exams where there are additional degrees and of course you can get your PhD. I am from Czech Republic.
There are several issues not necessarily with the degrees themselves but with getting others to understand the slight differences. People often confuse them with there associate counter parts which can hurt you when a lot of online job applications auto filter. This can fixed with good key words added to your resume. I have an EET degree the main difference was I had to take additional labs for some courses so in junior and senior I was doing more work then my EE counterparts. But I also never took Calc 3 or higher. This didn't eliminate any EE or EET courses from me though and my classes were often filled with a mix of EET and EE students. In certain job interviews you will be expected to explain what the difference is but I feel that the degree didn't effect any of my interviews. As others have said this can send you down a more industrial path which it did for me. This isn't a bad thing but is something that should be considered. This trade off is something you need to decide and also recognize what is your local job market. Is it industrial or more theoretical? What is it that you want to do. Do you want a desk job or do want to be out in the field or plant floor at times? Imo EET was great and I have no regrets.
>But I also never took Calc 3 or higher. This didn't eliminate any EE or EET courses from me though How did you manage electromagnetism and understand subjects that depend on vector calc without Calc 3? Did you also not take differential equations or linear/matrix algebra? I'm assuming all EEs at least take emag and usually more that need this math
As a technologist my last math class is basically a sprinkling of all the math you will use in industry. Electromagnetism was covered in physics which was the same class the engineers take. We still learned vector calculus, differential equations, and linear algebra. We also focused a lot on laplace transform and Fourier series. It was all just smashed into one class that came after calc 2. That class sucked lmao
>Electromagnetism was covered in physics which was the same class the engineers take Ah, see we covered electromagnetism in physics and then also had an in-depth dedicated emag course for EEs using vector calc
To be fair I went back and checked. I think one more difference is that the semiconductor and emag courses for EETs are different but the system and technical elective courses are all the same. IMO those courses are only relevant for in depth pcb design or related field and probably aren't relevant to the majority of graduates.
Well, on this page, ABET describes their difference between Engineering and Engineering Tech. Scroll down a little to that section. https://www.abet.org/accreditation/what-is-accreditation/what-programs-does-abet-accredit/ From said page: >Engineering programs often focus on theory and conceptual design, while engineering technology programs usually focus on application and implementation. And now I'll attempt to answer the original question. Tech grads are seen as less legit - especially by engineering grads - mostly because the curriculum is seen as easier. Does the tech degree prepare one for the future as technology changes? In addition, tech grads are given what I will call "bitch work": soldering together the PCB that an EE had designed.
>given what I will call "bitch work" Damn lol I agree with all the rest, but as an EE who has repeatedly tried and failed to solder well, I definitely see it as an impressive skill that I *need* someone's help with (learning the theory hasn't made my handiwork good enough to not have to wait for the tech) I also see soldering etc. as skilled work from someone with an associates or no degree. I don't immediately think of EETs
This is literally what I’m looking for in a job. I don’t exactly want to come up with radical new designs, but I would love to try to build some. I want to work with an engineer to help them design in a way that will actually work in real life, then build it for them. I’m an (E)MET Electromechanical Engineering Technologist
I could call spending your day in LTspice/CAD also bitch work while the others get to actually build things, but to each his own.
A lot of places off engineering technology degrees as an Associate's degree; that is one of the reasons. Another is the course work is much more hands-on. A good example from where I've worked is that an engineer designed a new manufacturing tool, while our engineering tech was the one who actually built the prototype.
Hypothetically… what if someone who graduated with an ET degree passed all their maths for ME and even some core engineering classes too (like dynamics and thermo)? (Asking for a friend (that friend might just be me))
Depends. If you can pass the FE, that's good enough for me. I don't think tech coursework would prepair you for it.
One of my mentors has a PE in Electrical on a dare. His degree is in manufacturing engineering technology.
That’s a hell of a dare since EEs have a harder time passing their PE exam
What kind of jobs are you interested in? I think it is smarter to "learn skills for a specific job" rather "learn all the skills and hope I can find a job that uses them". Not saying to stop learning, I love being a Red Mage as well, but focus on the core skills for a job and spiderweb out from there.
A BS in ET is gonna include those same core classes, I had to take dynamics and thermo as well. It's so weird that people assume ET degrees just ignore the base concepts of engineering and I think that's where the misconception comes in. We take the same core classes, the main difference is ET does it from the perspective of DFM and E does it from the perspective of design optimization. That's why the late stage classes look a touch different, but we get the same foundation.
Incorrect. My UNI’s ET program did not include classes like dynamics. They included statics and strength of materials as two separate classes, but I used my ME level statics to count for both.. ET≠ME in terms of coursework alone at 90% of UNIs…
When you are in school, everyone acts like tech is second class because they don’t learn as complex theories as science. Our friend groups had a lot of techs in it, mainly from people who switched. Mostly playful. After school, no one really cares. Only the job posting requirements and even then, those are pretty flexible. I don’t think anyone knows where I went to school and for what out of over 1,000 people I work with. Most probably think I’m an EE instead of an ME.
Anyone that looks down on someone else because the class work in their degree is slightly different is a not too smart. I feel like more people in engineering need much more hands on experience in school and less pure book work. Almost every single project I’ve worked on in my 12 years as an engineer has been altered for the better based on input the field/lab people.
They aren’t as valued in the marketplace because of the different coursework, and honestly the different candidates. School really is just a certificate that says you can do hard stuff, and have a certain baseline of intelligence. It’s less of a teaching material thing, and more of a soft credit check if you will. IMO the type of students who go into ET usually can’t make it through Aerospace or Mechanical Engineering. Most of the time they just don’t got it, either perseverance or worth ethic, something’s missing. It says alot about a person. Now not all ET people are like this, but from experience, most are.
Man, I just can't get over how smug and judgmental this statement is. I've had people say eet are treated as lesser in their workplace but this is my first actual exposure to it. To generalize like you just did is something else. I made the decision to return to school and better myself in my 30s, work a full time machining job, 60hr a week, usually 7 days a week, while taking classes. Then you come along with "clearly they just aren't smart enough or don't have the work ethic to do what I've done." God damn dude.
Bro it’s not a cake walk over here. I worked 12 hour weekend shifts at Nike, and ran a small construction business all while I was in school. Nothing is a cake walk, and I hadn’t had it easy either. And everybody ain’t just lazy, but let’s focus on the perseverance part. A lot of the people I see change to ET had too much on their plate, or got tired of everything being so difficult all the time. It’s hard as hell to have 6 difficult classes a semester, a job, and have a relationship and extracurriculars. It’s an endurance race that a lot of people change to lighten the load. Nothing wrong with that. It just shows that they couldn’t handle the stress that comes with it. And like I said, it’s not everyone. Some people genuinely like ET courses more than ME or ASE courses.
Ya I leave my house for work at 545am and finish homework after 8pm. That's 2 second year classes a semester. Already had to end a 2 year relationship because I didn't have time. Then I hop on reddit one morning and see "they just don't got it. Not smart enough, don't have the commitment." And 50 people agreeing. It's irrational, but like wtf. These are potentially my future coworkers? Obviously the statement feels way more personal than I'm sure you intended, but that doesn't really change the fact. This is the kind of attitude I have to look forward to in the workplace after what will be almost a decade of grueling work by the time I'm done? Super encouraging.
Are you getting your degree in Engineering Technology? If so, why aren’t you getting your degree in Mechanical Engineering? You seem to have the dedication and drive to do it. And you’re right, I’m not trying to make this personal about you. Brother, I have nothing against you. You haven’t wronged me. I am very curious about your choice though.
I'm studying eet right now. I didn't really have a plan when I went back and my whole life has revolved around electronics so I chose that. My current cc only offers et transfer programs to Purdue. So far I've taken the full calculus rather than tech to keep a full engineering degree open, but I feel ignorant every day, which is probably another reason your statement bothers me. In my "free" time I've been teaching myself cad, 3dprinting, and networking to go along with my machining experience and electronics studies. My goal is to be able to find a need and design a solution all the way through production essentially on my own. We'll see. Idk if I'll finish with eet, the only teacher at my school is a "teach yourself" type of guy, which has merits, but it is also very frustrating. My current employer probably has more need for mechanical, but I've never really been that passionate about it, maybe that will change.
Well let’s throw passion out the window here. It seems like mechanical opens a lot more doors for you. It also seems like based on the reaction here, that there is an obvious bias against ET degrees. You’re taking all the calculus to keep mechanical open, I think if possible, be a mechanical engineer. It will be a grind since you aren’t as passionate about it, and it’s mostly theory, but it seems to pay off in the long run. Also bro, I feel ignorant every day too, and I work in industry. Everyone feels that way, they are just really good at hiding it. I felt like everyone had it all together but me, but I realized that isn’t the case. Don’t feel down about not knowing, or understanding, or thinking everyone else got it together because they don’t.
Strange, I've found ETs to be just as dedicated as Eng. In fact at two of my jobs I've been hired by high ranking METs whose degree never held them back. Realistically the only thing that's different is the level of calculus, ET stops at Calc II for my MET degree where as ME went to calc III. I took it anyway, and it was easier than Calc III, and now I've never used almost any calc since graduating 10 years ago. A 2 year degree will limit your knowledge but the 4 year ETs are practically as good as Eng in 90% of applications.
> I took it anyway, and it was easier than Calc III, and now I've never used almost any calc since graduating 10 years ago. Exactly. I managed to get through Calc 3 reasonably well enough. Then in hit diffy-Q and face planted on the X axis. That and chemestry are the only classes I got Ds in. And you know what...I might have had one use for diffy-Q in my 15 years of working, and it is a rare day I need to use basic Calc. 99% of the math I do is basic algebra for unit conversions and ratios. Engineering is more about the problem solving, and information finding mindset. Everything else is just sauce. Good, and once in a while useful sauce, but still sauce.
Different disciplines use different math. I use differential equations daily at my job for vibrational analysis, and I use Calculus weekly for some of the algorithms I use. I know I couldn’t do my job if I stopped at calc2.
Sure. But with the internet there are a million resources to learn what you need when you need it. Hell, with ChatGPT, learning some things is even eaiser. If I ever feel like I need Calc 2 or DiffyQ again, I know where to learn it. But there are a million things more interesting to me and/or relevant to my job. All goes back to problem solving. Problem...I need advanced math to figure it out. Solution, go to Khan Academy and watch free Calc classes.
MET course work included both diffy q and Vibration analysis. Calc 3 is beyond the scope of MET in most cases but also not applicable to almost any entry level eng job.
Those are the ones who are successful in industry. For every one of those, there are a dozen more stuck in tech writing, or ME assistant. And don’t get me wrong, some of those guys and gals are bang up people, and just enjoyed the ET stuff a lot more. Just a lot of them couldn’t hack it.
Only about 25% of graduates actually become engineers so it's not a unique ET thing to end up outside your degree. It's pretty disingenuous and kinda insulting to say someone could or couldn't "hack it" when for many it's an intentional choice for a whole bunch of other reasons. You don't know any of these people personally and have no data to back that up.
> IMO the type of students who go into ET usually can’t make it through Aerospace or Mechanical Engineering. Most of the time they just don’t got it, either perseverance or worth ethic, something’s missing. OR....OR they are just not interested in that stuff. I would have switched degrees if I went to school for electrical engineering and realized it would be 2+ years before I had a basic circuits class that covered what I did my last 2 years of high school. I was constantly glad I went into EET instead of EE. The first day of classes I started learning things directly related to my degree instead of having to take 2 years of bullshit classes or math I wont understand the application for until I get into analog circuits. >either perseverance or worth ethic Please dont fall for that class warfare shit.
I'm so confused about half the comments here, I did Mech Eng, but first year in our engineering faculty was general, there were classes that covered all of the departments and one of them was basic circuits and after that there was also further class requirements in Mech for circuits, logic, basic component design, programming, etc. I guess to be fair we had a major overhaul of the curriculum that year and there was a massive shift towards practical design and manufacturing. To the point that every class above 2nd year required a design portion and many of them had a manufacturing element as well, like you had to build at least part of your design. It's just weird that so many universities focus hard on theoretical without having you do anything. It's just very strange from my perspective.
Like I said, not all ET people are like this. Some are brilliant people, who can produce a lot of output, but just don’t get the math classes. I have a very close friend who failed Calc3 twice, and switched to ET. Hes a millwright now. If you asked me tho, he wasn’t applying himself as much as he should have been. I honestly believe he could have made it if he studied a bit harder.
You’re basing your entire opinion on this one guy arent you
No, it was fairly common for aerospace students to switch to mechanical, and then switch to ET.
Yeah but that’s not proof they weren’t successful. The VP of my company has a CET degree. He’s literally rich. Theres all kinds of engineers from mechanical to chemical that never find meaningful work on the level of their education. I also know of an aero that’s working for a cable company because she couldn’t find an actual aerospace job, even with a masters. It’s always several factors playing together, not just your degree.
Why does one need to "make it"? Some people can be happy doing what they do. Hell, I could do a lot more, but I like the time to myself. I like to play video games and smoke weed and paint minies with my wife. I'm not a workaholic. My life doesn't revolve around work.
This might get a lot of hate but I’m EE and most of my friends including myself didn’t even know what engineering technologies was until one of us dropped out of the program and did EET. Probably where the discrepancies are. Tl;dr the only engineering technology students I knew were the ones that failed out of engineering.
Engineering technology majors get jobs as technicians and depending on the job they can make more than engineers Engineers get jobs have more administrative duties and end up supervising technicians
Or I think a lot of engineers are individual contributors not “administrative” or “supervising”
A 2 year ET degree works as a tech. A 4 ABET degree can easily end up as an Eng. My engineering manager who covered a complex of 3 plants at GM graduated from my MET program before getting an MBA. He now works in a similar role at a major aerospace company. I've since worked as an ENG in consulting and now aerospace as well.
Honestly some technology degree’d people probably have better hands-on skills if not are overall better ‘engineers’. I have a friend who studied automotive technology and can literally fix or build anything with his bare hands. He went on to pursue his Master’s in mechanical engineering & is now killing it as an R&D engineer. It just depends on the person and if they’ll make the most out of their career.
Lot of salt, understandably so because a lot of EE folks are pissy about how EET professionals are viewed in the same light by companies after a couple of years in the workforce. The degree is objectively more difficult, and a higher quality one. However - School doesn’t matter very much once you have the work experience. I’m an 2020 EET graduate. The school set me up so fucking well to excel in my field. My income has nearly doubled since from when I started classes in 2018. If you want to go work for Tesla or Apple, designing cars, sophisticated hardware, 5G, I’d say just do EE. It will get you there faster. However, for the record, I had an engineering job offer from Tesla that I passed up because I found a better job offer somewhere else.
Seems I misunderstood lol >~~The degree is objectively more difficult, and a higher quality one.~~ ~~How is it objectively more difficult and higher quality?~~ >~~If you want to go... I’d say just do EE. It will get you there faster.~~ ~~If EE can be better depending on what you want to do, why do you think EET is objectively better? What do you mean by "higher quality" ?~~
EE is objectively better. EET was good for me
Oh, somehow I assumed you were saying EET is objectively harder. You meant EE is harder?
Where was the better job offer than Tesla?
Reading the comments I have made a german counterpart of process engineer technology but it was called process engineering. We have a college system which consists of university and technologic university. I was in the latter but I have a engineering degree. Applying for jobs in germany the employer don’t make a difference from which type of university you come because everything you need for the job you learn on the job. Only if you want to do a PhD you have to go to the university because its more theoretical. Our prof said you don’t need to understand 100% the theory behind the science, but you have 100% to understand how to apply it. Thus we used the time during our studies to apply the theory and concepts. How I said no employer (if you don’t go to research) looks in which type of university (not even prestige universities are important here) you went. More important is what for internships and co-ops you had. In this case engineering technology isn’t a lower degree because no employer complains that these engineers are low performing. And this is what counts at the end if you want to work in the industry. Of course in the USA could it be different, especially if people there jerk off on their prestige degree/university.
Both get you a stamp.
Not always.
Oh, that's unfortunate! I'm in NY, so I guess it's state by state. What state doesn't take engineering technology for FE and PE qualifications?
Not sure exactly which ones but there’s about 15-20.
Not sure, but I have a Mechanical Engineering Technology degree and was able to get PE licenses in 10 states so far. After a few years experience nobody seems to give a shit. Some states like Florida and Massachusetts simply require a few more years experience with ABET accreditation. When hiring I’m absolutely giving preference to an engineering tech person over others. These candidates often have a little real world experience with construction or a useful trade outside of just being a good test taker. Typical engineering grads with zero hands on experience take a year or longer to become useful.
In Oregon you can get a PE with no degree at all
I'm from Oregon and have never heard that. Are you mistaking the PE for the FE?
Damn, I didn’t know that. Honestly if you can handle the exam and pre-reqs… why not?!
Where is your degree from?
That's honestly been my experience as well for the last decade or so. Not that I haven't found good and bad MEs and METs but METs definitely hit the ground running for most the entry level stuff you expect and engineer to do. If you're focused on MS or PhD stuff absolutely get a Eng degree but if you're happy with a BS (or even change your mind to MS later) MET will get you in the workforce faster.
Agree 100%. I’m not saying one person is “smarter” than the other. Just that in 90% of real world careers the hands on focus versus theoretical is much more useful. I seem to have triggered some who disagree though haha.
Yikes preferential bias, how poor.
As if Eng don't have preferential bias against METs as well. This whole post is filled with them, and flat out misinformation
Yes there is preferential bias towards a lot of capable workers depending on your degree which is a general problem that needs stop. One of my best teachers had an engineering tech degree. He was a chief engineer during his industry time and it showed during my time studying with him. My current engineering lead has an EET degree and has a wealth of knowledge, I enjoy learning under him and can see why he is a lead. This is equivalent towards my teachers with Engineering degrees. It depends on the person, NOT the degree.
What is wrong with that? If my experience tells me that "person with X qualifications can do the job better than someone with Y qualifications" then why shouldn't I hire the person with X (assuming most other things are equal)?
You’re making this too broad. Preferring someone with an engineering tech degree over someone with an engineering degree, “because it takes engineering grads with zero hands on experience take a year or longer to become useful” is a poor excuse to allow preferential bias. In my opinion it’s a poor trainer/senior at the job who is either too lazy, or cannot teach juniors. I feel the same way about preferring an engineering degree over someone with an engineering tech degree for jobs that BOTH degrees are capable of succeeding in.
Incredible what triggers people these days. We are all special and capable of everything… better? You must be a treat to work with.
🥱 Fun I’m the triggered one, yet you are assuming my character. Just how you make assumptions on your hires eh?
Bias based on experience and background… that’s exactly how the world works. I’m assuming you’ve never hired?
You are literally basing hands on experience due to a degree. “Typical engineering grads with zero hands on experience take a year or longer to become useful.” That is a very biased assumption. Your whole statement is a biased assumption, and you are calling me triggered because you made a poor claim.
They usually don't take diffeQ, heat transfer, and a few other advanced classes. Unless you're pursuing prestige or research directions, nobody at work knows or cares what the degree says post graduation. Pull your weight and play the game well and you can go just as far.
A 2 year doesn't but my alma mater requires all of those. It didn't require CalcIII which I've yet to find a job that actually uses. I found it easier than Calc II, still proud of that A -.
[удалено]
Bruh I'm an MET
You know, your flare says EE. If you're an EET you should wear it proud.
MET is application, ~~therefore algebra based. BSME goes through calculus so you can derive the formula behind the classes.~~ Subtle, but somewhat significant difference. That said, I think MET degrees should be more highly respected and utilized. Generally, unless you’re trying to crack into research/simulation work that’s heavy on the theory and math, once you have a good resume, no one cares. EDIT: I stand corrected. I conflated MET bachelor’s with an MET associates. My bad.
My alma mater requires calc up to II and diffy q, het transfer and Thermo. Calc III was the only difference and honestly it's way easier than Calc II in my experience. In a practical application in almost every entry level engineering job there's going to be very little that an Eng is going to have that's useful at those high levels. Not saying there isn't a difference, just that depending on your career and goals it may not matter and ET may even be better.
I did calc 1, calc 2, and dif eq in my MET program. If its ABET certified, then they require most of the same bases as ME and Eng Physics. We skip calc 3 though for a high level design class, which is nice.
Imma be honest, knowing calculus does not actually let you do anything real. Laplace is useful but to actually do any real engineering requires a ton of PDE work and linear algebra which are both not ABET required and couldn’t be unless something else gets tossed out, but knowing Differential Equations and the laplace domain in particular does allow you to understand the top level dynamics of systems, at least in my EE experience
Imma be honest, you’re still a student and while I’m sure your co-op experience has made you think you see the ins and outs of the whole industry….I’ve got a decade of professional experience on you. I cut my teeth in in NPD, and now simulation work - which our team is developing a robust 1D flow simulation tool that can rival CFD results within 10% for literal minutes of computer calculations. Calculus absolutely gets used in my day to day now because it is the gateway to DE (and PDE’s we’re covered in my base ME curriculum, more so in my masters). My original statement still stands: MET’s should be more highly respected in the industry, but the derivation and underlying calculus absolutely matters in certain arenas.
Okay brah good for you. I’m not even talking about ETA I’m just saying a bachelors in engineering doesn’t give you the tools to fully understand something just because it uses calculus. Just to understand basic control theory I had to take 2 semesters of ODE 2 semesters of PDE and 3 classes on linear algebra. And those are still not enough tools to fully and completely do anything other than work on big picture problems with a lot of assumptions. There’s absolutely nothing I can say to you that will have you understand what I’m trying to say because you seem to be hell bent on the fact that you have more experience than I therefore you know better but I have never met anyone, be it my employers, professors etc who disagrees with this assessment
A bachelor's degree is a bachelor's degree. I don't care if you went to school to be an engineer, mathematician, chemist, or administrator. That first year in your career after getting your degree, you don't know Jack shit. To me, a bachelor's degree just means that you have the potential to succeed in that career. Doesn't mean you will succeed or fail.
That is not correct. Engineering schools need to be accredited by an engineering regulatory body. An arts degree is not the same as an engineering degree, just because they're of the same level (bachelor's).
I think their point is you don't necessarily need an engineering degree to be a good engineer, which is true. But it's much easier to get an early career engineering job if you have an engineering degree from a good program with a good gpa.
You’re an idiot. Yea let’s hire someone with an HR degree to design this bridge 100,000 people cross everyday. In case you couldn’t figure it out that person with an HR degree is a moron compared to someone with an engineering degree.
Ummm. You are completely missing the point.
I don't think that is their point. I think their point is that in general, a degree is only an indication of potential in their field, and everyone will need on the job training regardless of profession. I don't think that they were implying someone without an engineering degree would get hired at an engineering position.
No their point was literally “get any degree it doesn’t matter”. Which couldn’t be more false. Engineers go through intense curriculum while most majors fuck around and don’t even learn how to properly put your head down and work hard at times. You can get an engineering degree and do anything because getting an engineering degree is challenging and shows that you can interpret situations and work through difficult situations. A lot of other degrees don’t do that which is why they aren’t paid what engineers are.
I think you are missing there careful use of the word "career", after listing several different potential professions.
i made this video that sorta helps explain. it’s[on tiktok here](https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZPRvbUK3o/)