On B.S.E and B.S.ET for the Engineering Profession Page: 42
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
On B.S.E and B.S.ET for the
Enrique Barbieri, Farrokh Attarzadeh, Raresh Pascali, Wajiha Shireen,
and William Fitzgibbon
A healthy supply of articles dealing with engineering
(E) and engineering technology (ET) education is read-
ily found in conference proceedings and journal ven-
ues. It is widely accepted that since the Grinter Report
of 19551, E programs in the U.S. have grown to be more
theoretical, leaving fewer curricular opportunities for
the student to experience the practice of engineering,
especially during the freshman and sophomore years. A
glaring exception is perhaps Olin College of Engineer-
ing, which opened in fall 2002 to an inaugural fresh-
man class that follows a hands-on, interdisciplinary and
rigorous curriculum that is claimed to better reflect ac-
tual engineering practice. In general, though the 4-year
window leading to a B.S. in an engineering specialty
has been densely packed with technical and non-tech-
nical courses, a de-emphasis of laboratory instruction,
an increase in lecture hours and theoretical content,
and, paradoxically, a decrease in total hours required
to obtain the degree while the pressure continues to
mount to also have business, project management, eth-
ics, communication, and other "soft" skill development
Over the years, baccalaureate ET programs accredited
by the Technology Accreditation Commission of ABET
have been established in over 120 institutions of higher
education across the U.S. that maintain a laboratory-
rich and practical philosophy of engineering education
while reducing the mathematics and science depth that
is required of E courses. Much has been written about E
programs and how they should adapt, address the non-
negligible freshman and sophomore attrition rates, and
meet the NAE Grand Challenges. Likewise, much has
been written about ET programs, their role, identity,
and relevance challenges. Inevitably, much is also writ-
ten to compare and contrast E and ET programs many
times in an effort to clarify to our constituents and to
each other the proverbial question "What is ET?"
Despite all the literature, conference meetings, and
debates, there continues to be a remarkable amount of
miscommunication with the media, parents, counsel-
ors, employers, and prospective students. This miscom-
munication is accompanied by a subtle and damaging
image problem that results in misguided advice that is
imparted to students of both the E and the ET degree
programs. The result is that students get confused.
Many abruptly leave E before they get a chance to ex-
perience engineering. Some who transfer to ET may do
so and feel that they failed; yet they eventually discover
that the practical aspects offered by ET were what they
were looking for all along. They then graduate and lead
a rewarding career in engineering. Likewise, faculty,
academic counselors and industry recruiters get con-
42 I Journal of Engineering Technology * Spring 2010
Here’s what’s next.
This article can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Article.
Barbieri, Enrique; Attarzadeh, Farrokh; Pascali, Raresh; Shireen, Wajiha & Fitzgibbon, William. On B.S.E and B.S.ET for the Engineering Profession, article, 2010; [Washington, DC]. (digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc122181/m1/1/: accessed February 17, 2018), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT College of Engineering.