Discussion Central

As engineering overall has become a more popular major for college students and chemical engineers have spread throughout  variety of industries, what has ABET and AIChE done to ensure the quality of the engineer student "product"? It's been about 10 years since I graduated from what was an ABET accredited school. We were lucky that you were at least required to take the FE to graduate, although you didn't have to pass. Directions on transitioning to EIT were not as explicit however and a lot of people probably failed to turn in passing results to the state. I didn't because at the time I knew my most likely position was in the local industry and getting a PE was looked at as unnecessary. Basically my school felt like it was churning out local engineers who were never likely to move so the local industry wouldn't have to worry about people quitting to move to more interesting cities. The transition to a full time engineer from a co-op was somewhat tumultuous and honing of technical skills is largely seen as driven by the engineer themselves in the traditional "sink or swim" mentality.

What checks are seen in your job to ensure that the new engineer is learning the techniques needed for your specific industry? How are these updated with changing technologies? Do you feel that your onboarding was sufficient and what are the consequences if you don't meet minimum requirements? Do you feel that your learning or work styles would have been better suited to a different industry once your learn more about the day to day job duties? Do you feel like it's too late to change careers or are you uncertain of how to change careers at this point?

How should we educate students more in depth on the vast differences in what their daily lives could be like in different industries? Should we force more specialized engineering groups or is a more structured path to your final industry like Architects or Actuaries have the better solution? How do we ensure that the students being produced are capable and aware of life time learning requirements in the job? How do we hold the industries accountable for supporting lifetime learning other than a push for requiring professionals go through the formal PE process? I'm sure there are a million other questions and some of these are highly dependent on the industry or specific company you work for so I'm excited to see the discussion.

------------------------------
Kristin Prejean
Process Design Engineer
Lake Charles LA
------------------------------

In my career in industry I worked as a site-based process engineering supervisor, and a corporate manager of technology. In both jobs I had both senior, experienced process engineers and nascent process engineering graduates straight from school. One of my most critical duties was the mentoring and shepherding of these new graduates so they they could become productive process engineers. This work was the responsibility of not just me, but also of the engineers in my group to which this new graduate was now a part.

I believe that engineering school, especially the bachelor's program, is where young high school graduates with an interest in cognitive problem solving learn the basic fundamentals. But it is not the place for learning a career. At the University of Texas, the first real ChE class was 316, Heat and Material Balances. And even as a graduating senior, it was common to hear a professor admonish the class with "This is just basic 316, y'all!" Thermo, Transport, Unit Ops, Reactor Design, Plant Design, ChE Labs... these were where that love of problem-solving was nurtured to apply to basic Chemical Engineering fundamentals. Add in the other required courses of a broad-based University engineering program and there are really not that many slots available for elective engineering classes. Where is the time for a University to accept the role of creating an industry-specific engineering expert?

That graduating senior, when we hired them for our organization, was considered a blank slate. It was up to us---both supervisors and managers, AND engineering peers---to create from that beautiful hunk of schooled clay an expert in the areas we needed. It's not unlike being a parent.

I think the answers to your question are not so much what should Universities be doing to create full-blown engineers straight out of school, but what are the stories, the techniques that spark the imagination and germinate the growth of that new graduate in whatever industry they decide to dip their toes into.

One area that is new these days is that engineers are not bound by their first hiring decision out of school; either by company or even by industry. At least for a while, when it is still economical for a company to make the training investment, engineers move as they learn more about who they are, where their interests are, and "what they want to be when they grow up." In these cases, the receiving industry/company is again investing the time to train the new employee in the processes and methods they use. Much like a new graduate.

------------------------------
Steve Cutchen
Investigator, retired
US Chemical Safety Board
Houston TX
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 10-02-2020 10:09
From: Kristin Prejean
Subject: Are standards for front line chemical engineers rigorous enough?

As engineering overall has become a more popular major for college students and chemical engineers have spread throughout  variety of industries, what has ABET and AIChE done to ensure the quality of the engineer student "product"? It's been about 10 years since I graduated from what was an ABET accredited school. We were lucky that you were at least required to take the FE to graduate, although you didn't have to pass. Directions on transitioning to EIT were not as explicit however and a lot of people probably failed to turn in passing results to the state. I didn't because at the time I knew my most likely position was in the local industry and getting a PE was looked at as unnecessary. Basically my school felt like it was churning out local engineers who were never likely to move so the local industry wouldn't have to worry about people quitting to move to more interesting cities. The transition to a full time engineer from a co-op was somewhat tumultuous and honing of technical skills is largely seen as driven by the engineer themselves in the traditional "sink or swim" mentality.

What checks are seen in your job to ensure that the new engineer is learning the techniques needed for your specific industry? How are these updated with changing technologies? Do you feel that your onboarding was sufficient and what are the consequences if you don't meet minimum requirements? Do you feel that your learning or work styles would have been better suited to a different industry once your learn more about the day to day job duties? Do you feel like it's too late to change careers or are you uncertain of how to change careers at this point?

How should we educate students more in depth on the vast differences in what their daily lives could be like in different industries? Should we force more specialized engineering groups or is a more structured path to your final industry like Architects or Actuaries have the better solution? How do we ensure that the students being produced are capable and aware of life time learning requirements in the job? How do we hold the industries accountable for supporting lifetime learning other than a push for requiring professionals go through the formal PE process? I'm sure there are a million other questions and some of these are highly dependent on the industry or specific company you work for so I'm excited to see the discussion.

------------------------------
Kristin Prejean
Process Design Engineer
Lake Charles LA
------------------------------

Thanks for taking the time to reply Steve. I especially liked the part " but what are the stories, the techniques that spark the imagination and germinate the growth of that new graduate in whatever industry they decide to dip their toes into." as that sums up what I was thinking. I don't think it is the sole responsibility of the university in a 4 year degree program to produce the perfect engineer. I guess what I'm getting at is are we going to get to a point where chemical engineers would be required to be EIT's for a certain length of time with a company following graduation and then be required to take and pass the PE in order to continue on? Onboarding and quality of mentoring of new hires can be inconsistent across companies, and while that has consequences for the company in the long term, what happens to any sub par work that passes through until then with an engineer that's not properly trained? This is much more philosophical than technical!

------------------------------
Kristin Prejean
Process Design Engineer
Lake Charles LA
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 10-03-2020 00:18
From: Steve Cutchen
Subject: Are standards for front line chemical engineers rigorous enough?

In my career in industry I worked as a site-based process engineering supervisor, and a corporate manager of technology. In both jobs I had both senior, experienced process engineers and nascent process engineering graduates straight from school. One of my most critical duties was the mentoring and shepherding of these new graduates so they they could become productive process engineers. This work was the responsibility of not just me, but also of the engineers in my group to which this new graduate was now a part.

I believe that engineering school, especially the bachelor's program, is where young high school graduates with an interest in cognitive problem solving learn the basic fundamentals. But it is not the place for learning a career. At the University of Texas, the first real ChE class was 316, Heat and Material Balances. And even as a graduating senior, it was common to hear a professor admonish the class with "This is just basic 316, y'all!" Thermo, Transport, Unit Ops, Reactor Design, Plant Design, ChE Labs... these were where that love of problem-solving was nurtured to apply to basic Chemical Engineering fundamentals. Add in the other required courses of a broad-based University engineering program and there are really not that many slots available for elective engineering classes. Where is the time for a University to accept the role of creating an industry-specific engineering expert?

That graduating senior, when we hired them for our organization, was considered a blank slate. It was up to us---both supervisors and managers, AND engineering peers---to create from that beautiful hunk of schooled clay an expert in the areas we needed. It's not unlike being a parent.

I think the answers to your question are not so much what should Universities be doing to create full-blown engineers straight out of school, but what are the stories, the techniques that spark the imagination and germinate the growth of that new graduate in whatever industry they decide to dip their toes into.

One area that is new these days is that engineers are not bound by their first hiring decision out of school; either by company or even by industry. At least for a while, when it is still economical for a company to make the training investment, engineers move as they learn more about who they are, where their interests are, and "what they want to be when they grow up." In these cases, the receiving industry/company is again investing the time to train the new employee in the processes and methods they use. Much like a new graduate.

------------------------------
Steve Cutchen
Investigator, retired
US Chemical Safety Board
Houston TX

Original Message:
Sent: 10-02-2020 10:09
From: Kristin Prejean
Subject: Are standards for front line chemical engineers rigorous enough?

As engineering overall has become a more popular major for college students and chemical engineers have spread throughout  variety of industries, what has ABET and AIChE done to ensure the quality of the engineer student "product"? It's been about 10 years since I graduated from what was an ABET accredited school. We were lucky that you were at least required to take the FE to graduate, although you didn't have to pass. Directions on transitioning to EIT were not as explicit however and a lot of people probably failed to turn in passing results to the state. I didn't because at the time I knew my most likely position was in the local industry and getting a PE was looked at as unnecessary. Basically my school felt like it was churning out local engineers who were never likely to move so the local industry wouldn't have to worry about people quitting to move to more interesting cities. The transition to a full time engineer from a co-op was somewhat tumultuous and honing of technical skills is largely seen as driven by the engineer themselves in the traditional "sink or swim" mentality.

What checks are seen in your job to ensure that the new engineer is learning the techniques needed for your specific industry? How are these updated with changing technologies? Do you feel that your onboarding was sufficient and what are the consequences if you don't meet minimum requirements? Do you feel that your learning or work styles would have been better suited to a different industry once your learn more about the day to day job duties? Do you feel like it's too late to change careers or are you uncertain of how to change careers at this point?

How should we educate students more in depth on the vast differences in what their daily lives could be like in different industries? Should we force more specialized engineering groups or is a more structured path to your final industry like Architects or Actuaries have the better solution? How do we ensure that the students being produced are capable and aware of life time learning requirements in the job? How do we hold the industries accountable for supporting lifetime learning other than a push for requiring professionals go through the formal PE process? I'm sure there are a million other questions and some of these are highly dependent on the industry or specific company you work for so I'm excited to see the discussion.

------------------------------
Kristin Prejean
Process Design Engineer
Lake Charles LA
------------------------------

I agree that we need students to get adequate exposure so they learn more about the potentials industries where they can work.  Also agree that universities don't have the time and probably more importantly the expertise to focus on the work environment, build a strong base and then industry experience can build on it.

As for certifications, the basic PE has some credibility, but most engineers are not actively designing system or stamping drawings.  They are using their basic skills in high level analysis, economic analysis and other areas where solid fundamentals and organized thought processes are more important than detailed calculations.  Sometimes a basis mass-energy balance is a powerful go - no-go tool!


------------------------------
Gary Hilberg PE
President
Continuum Energy
Cypress TX
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 10-03-2020 00:18
From: Steve Cutchen
Subject: Are standards for front line chemical engineers rigorous enough?

In my career in industry I worked as a site-based process engineering supervisor, and a corporate manager of technology. In both jobs I had both senior, experienced process engineers and nascent process engineering graduates straight from school. One of my most critical duties was the mentoring and shepherding of these new graduates so they they could become productive process engineers. This work was the responsibility of not just me, but also of the engineers in my group to which this new graduate was now a part.

I believe that engineering school, especially the bachelor's program, is where young high school graduates with an interest in cognitive problem solving learn the basic fundamentals. But it is not the place for learning a career. At the University of Texas, the first real ChE class was 316, Heat and Material Balances. And even as a graduating senior, it was common to hear a professor admonish the class with "This is just basic 316, y'all!" Thermo, Transport, Unit Ops, Reactor Design, Plant Design, ChE Labs... these were where that love of problem-solving was nurtured to apply to basic Chemical Engineering fundamentals. Add in the other required courses of a broad-based University engineering program and there are really not that many slots available for elective engineering classes. Where is the time for a University to accept the role of creating an industry-specific engineering expert?

That graduating senior, when we hired them for our organization, was considered a blank slate. It was up to us---both supervisors and managers, AND engineering peers---to create from that beautiful hunk of schooled clay an expert in the areas we needed. It's not unlike being a parent.

I think the answers to your question are not so much what should Universities be doing to create full-blown engineers straight out of school, but what are the stories, the techniques that spark the imagination and germinate the growth of that new graduate in whatever industry they decide to dip their toes into.

One area that is new these days is that engineers are not bound by their first hiring decision out of school; either by company or even by industry. At least for a while, when it is still economical for a company to make the training investment, engineers move as they learn more about who they are, where their interests are, and "what they want to be when they grow up." In these cases, the receiving industry/company is again investing the time to train the new employee in the processes and methods they use. Much like a new graduate.

------------------------------
Steve Cutchen
Investigator, retired
US Chemical Safety Board
Houston TX

Original Message:
Sent: 10-02-2020 10:09
From: Kristin Prejean
Subject: Are standards for front line chemical engineers rigorous enough?

As engineering overall has become a more popular major for college students and chemical engineers have spread throughout  variety of industries, what has ABET and AIChE done to ensure the quality of the engineer student "product"? It's been about 10 years since I graduated from what was an ABET accredited school. We were lucky that you were at least required to take the FE to graduate, although you didn't have to pass. Directions on transitioning to EIT were not as explicit however and a lot of people probably failed to turn in passing results to the state. I didn't because at the time I knew my most likely position was in the local industry and getting a PE was looked at as unnecessary. Basically my school felt like it was churning out local engineers who were never likely to move so the local industry wouldn't have to worry about people quitting to move to more interesting cities. The transition to a full time engineer from a co-op was somewhat tumultuous and honing of technical skills is largely seen as driven by the engineer themselves in the traditional "sink or swim" mentality.

What checks are seen in your job to ensure that the new engineer is learning the techniques needed for your specific industry? How are these updated with changing technologies? Do you feel that your onboarding was sufficient and what are the consequences if you don't meet minimum requirements? Do you feel that your learning or work styles would have been better suited to a different industry once your learn more about the day to day job duties? Do you feel like it's too late to change careers or are you uncertain of how to change careers at this point?

How should we educate students more in depth on the vast differences in what their daily lives could be like in different industries? Should we force more specialized engineering groups or is a more structured path to your final industry like Architects or Actuaries have the better solution? How do we ensure that the students being produced are capable and aware of life time learning requirements in the job? How do we hold the industries accountable for supporting lifetime learning other than a push for requiring professionals go through the formal PE process? I'm sure there are a million other questions and some of these are highly dependent on the industry or specific company you work for so I'm excited to see the discussion.

------------------------------
Kristin Prejean
Process Design Engineer
Lake Charles LA
------------------------------

Yes, maybe there's something the industries and colleges can work on together, with any gaps bridged by AIChE, to create available videos showing rough ideas of day to day? With hints as to which careers would benefit from PE or Masters and such. Depending on the college you go to and where you want to live may take a lot of choices off the table for you in terms of career however so it may be a moot point.

I do agree that the PE isn't necessarily needed if you're not actively doing design or stamping drawings but I think the accountability for cementing the fundamentals you mentioned would be supported by requiring passing the PE. As long as the standards are maintained for the test, which I must be implying are not being maintained in the schools.

------------------------------
Kristin Prejean
Process Design Engineer
Lake Charles LA
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 10-06-2020 16:34
From: Gary Hilberg
Subject: Are standards for front line chemical engineers rigorous enough?

I agree that we need students to get adequate exposure so they learn more about the potentials industries where they can work.  Also agree that universities don't have the time and probably more importantly the expertise to focus on the work environment, build a strong base and then industry experience can build on it.

As for certifications, the basic PE has some credibility, but most engineers are not actively designing system or stamping drawings.  They are using their basic skills in high level analysis, economic analysis and other areas where solid fundamentals and organized thought processes are more important than detailed calculations.  Sometimes a basis mass-energy balance is a powerful go - no-go tool!


------------------------------
Gary Hilberg PE
President
Continuum Energy
Cypress TX

Original Message:
Sent: 10-03-2020 00:18
From: Steve Cutchen
Subject: Are standards for front line chemical engineers rigorous enough?

In my career in industry I worked as a site-based process engineering supervisor, and a corporate manager of technology. In both jobs I had both senior, experienced process engineers and nascent process engineering graduates straight from school. One of my most critical duties was the mentoring and shepherding of these new graduates so they they could become productive process engineers. This work was the responsibility of not just me, but also of the engineers in my group to which this new graduate was now a part.

I believe that engineering school, especially the bachelor's program, is where young high school graduates with an interest in cognitive problem solving learn the basic fundamentals. But it is not the place for learning a career. At the University of Texas, the first real ChE class was 316, Heat and Material Balances. And even as a graduating senior, it was common to hear a professor admonish the class with "This is just basic 316, y'all!" Thermo, Transport, Unit Ops, Reactor Design, Plant Design, ChE Labs... these were where that love of problem-solving was nurtured to apply to basic Chemical Engineering fundamentals. Add in the other required courses of a broad-based University engineering program and there are really not that many slots available for elective engineering classes. Where is the time for a University to accept the role of creating an industry-specific engineering expert?

That graduating senior, when we hired them for our organization, was considered a blank slate. It was up to us---both supervisors and managers, AND engineering peers---to create from that beautiful hunk of schooled clay an expert in the areas we needed. It's not unlike being a parent.

I think the answers to your question are not so much what should Universities be doing to create full-blown engineers straight out of school, but what are the stories, the techniques that spark the imagination and germinate the growth of that new graduate in whatever industry they decide to dip their toes into.

One area that is new these days is that engineers are not bound by their first hiring decision out of school; either by company or even by industry. At least for a while, when it is still economical for a company to make the training investment, engineers move as they learn more about who they are, where their interests are, and "what they want to be when they grow up." In these cases, the receiving industry/company is again investing the time to train the new employee in the processes and methods they use. Much like a new graduate.

------------------------------
Steve Cutchen
Investigator, retired
US Chemical Safety Board
Houston TX

Original Message:
Sent: 10-02-2020 10:09
From: Kristin Prejean
Subject: Are standards for front line chemical engineers rigorous enough?

As engineering overall has become a more popular major for college students and chemical engineers have spread throughout  variety of industries, what has ABET and AIChE done to ensure the quality of the engineer student "product"? It's been about 10 years since I graduated from what was an ABET accredited school. We were lucky that you were at least required to take the FE to graduate, although you didn't have to pass. Directions on transitioning to EIT were not as explicit however and a lot of people probably failed to turn in passing results to the state. I didn't because at the time I knew my most likely position was in the local industry and getting a PE was looked at as unnecessary. Basically my school felt like it was churning out local engineers who were never likely to move so the local industry wouldn't have to worry about people quitting to move to more interesting cities. The transition to a full time engineer from a co-op was somewhat tumultuous and honing of technical skills is largely seen as driven by the engineer themselves in the traditional "sink or swim" mentality.

What checks are seen in your job to ensure that the new engineer is learning the techniques needed for your specific industry? How are these updated with changing technologies? Do you feel that your onboarding was sufficient and what are the consequences if you don't meet minimum requirements? Do you feel that your learning or work styles would have been better suited to a different industry once your learn more about the day to day job duties? Do you feel like it's too late to change careers or are you uncertain of how to change careers at this point?

How should we educate students more in depth on the vast differences in what their daily lives could be like in different industries? Should we force more specialized engineering groups or is a more structured path to your final industry like Architects or Actuaries have the better solution? How do we ensure that the students being produced are capable and aware of life time learning requirements in the job? How do we hold the industries accountable for supporting lifetime learning other than a push for requiring professionals go through the formal PE process? I'm sure there are a million other questions and some of these are highly dependent on the industry or specific company you work for so I'm excited to see the discussion.

------------------------------
Kristin Prejean
Process Design Engineer
Lake Charles LA
------------------------------