Should We Require that the First Professional Degree in Engineering be Master of Science?
Moshe Kam and Arnold Peskin, the IEEE Educational Activities Board
The IEEE is in the process of developing its position on the First Professional Degree in Engineering. While most
engineers who are members of IEEE are either electrical or computer engineers (with mechanical engineers forming the
next largest contingent of IEEE engineers) the policy we are working on – with the collaboration of other professional
associations – will address all branches of Engineering.
The purpose of this article is to introduce the issue and solicit the opinions of readers of the Institute. We wish to share
the views of IEEE members with the IEEE organizational units that are developing the IEEE policy.
The First Professional Degree in Engineering is the customary terminal degree needed for the effective practice of
Engineering. Practice is understood to be in an industrial setting, and not require inordinate additional training. In a
discipline as large and diverse as Engineering, there are often other requirements, as well as many Engineering career
paths that require different levels of training. For example, Engineering researchers and academics often need more
formal education. Individuals who branch into sales and marketing often seek a different type of training (compared to
what is customarily offered in academic Engineering departments). In most professions there is an expectation, shared by
the public and the profession, that defines the preparation normally required of a person termed ‘physician’, ‘lawyer’,
‘dentist’ or ‘engineer.’ This expectation starts with the First Professional Degree, and also informs licensing bodies about
the minimum educational requirements for candidates for licensure.
In many countries the First Professional Degree in Engineering has been (and is) the Bachelor of Science or Bachelor of
Engineering – usually conferred by an academic institution through an Engineering department. Some countries that
required more schooling or practice (and titles such as Diplom-Engineer) tended in the last decade to modify their
requirements so as to conform to the B.Sc./B.Eng. “standard” instead. However, for over a century since Engineering has
been a recognized academic discipline, there was a constant increase in the complexity and specialization in most
Engineering fields, with commensurate increase in the required level of preparation. While other professions (Medicine,
Law) organized their academic enterprise to require longer studies, and required a graduate degree as the First
Professional Degree, a plateau was reached in most Engineering programs when the preparation level arrived at the four
year baccalaureate level.
Over the years, there have been many advocates who encouraged the Engineering profession to emulate the longer
training path of other professions. Until recently their advice went unheeded.
When the Bologna Process was proposed as a new paradigm for higher education in Europe, most Engineering programs
were envisioned to have a “3+2+2 structure.” The first three years were to be devoted to studies toward a Bachelor of
Science degree which would become a pre-Engineering degree. The next two years were dedicated to attaining the First
Professional Degree, namely Master of Science. Students who wish to obtain a Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) would
normally require two additional years of study (and the preparation of an original dissertation).
In the United States, the National Academy of Engineering and the American Society of Civil Engineers have both
advocated that the Master of Science be declared the First Professional Degree in Engineering. Most recently, the US
National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES) has discussed changes to its Model Law that
would require a B.Sc. degree plus 30 semester credits as a pre-requisite for candidacy for licensure.
In the Table below we have summarized the arguments for and against a change of the First Professional Degree in
Engineering from the current Bachelor of Science in Engineering. The topic is on the agendas of the IEEE Educational
Activities Board and the IEEE-USA Board, and eventually will be the subject of an IEEE policy approved by the IEEE
Board of Directors. The Boards are eager to hear from readers of The Institute about their thoughts on the issue: Should the
IEEE adopt the Master of Science degree (or equivalent), conferred by an accredited Engineering program, as the First Professional
Degree in Engineering?
Write to us at…
What should the
requirement be?
What does it
mean?
What changes
would be needed?
Who appear to
support each
position?
The Main
Argument
The First Professional Degree in Engineering
Change the requirements
Leave the requirements as they are today
A Master of Science in Engineering or a Bachelor of
A Bachelor of Science in Engineering (or
Science in Engineering + 30 Semester credits
equivalent), as it is now
New holders of B.Sc. or B.Eng. would not be
B.Sc. or B.Eng programs need to train students so
considered ready to practice Engineering, but would that they can practice Engineering at an entry level.
have to acquire additional educational credentials
Examinations for licensing would require that test
(such as an M.Sc/M.Eng) in order to practice and
taker be holders of B.Sc/B.Eng from an accredited
take exams for licensure.
program as is the case at present.
New accreditation procedures for graduate
None.
programs; development of new graduate curricula;
changes in licensure procedures and laws.
Several Engineering associations or some of their
Several Engineering associations and/or their
units, i.e. ASCE; in the US, the National Academy of organizational units, e.g., the IEEE Alaska Section;
Engineering and NCEES. In Europe, the developers in the US – several representatives of State licensing
of the Bologna Process.
boards who do not intend to adopt a new “Model
Law” of the NCEES.
Changes in the business climate and the demands
The traditions of Engineering practice are well
that society imposes on engineers have made the
established and are largely time tested and
standard 120-semester credit programs too short
successful. The proposed change would cause
and too “packed” to provide adequate education for significant dislocation (new regulations,
21st century engineers. Like other professionals
grandfathering clauses) and high expenditures (the
(physicians, lawyers), engineers need to develop
First Professional Degree will cost 20-30% more
specialization and enjoy longer professional training than it costs today). There will be no or very little
prior to beginning their practice.
benefit.
Additional Arguments
The undergraduate Engineering curriculum is
The current system works well. While some
increasingly expanding in coverage and scope due
Engineering associations and groups of educators
to advancement of technology and the emergence of favor a longer education path, the primary clients of
new societal requirements. There is simply not
Engineering education, namely industry and the
enough time in the current system to cover all the
public, are not concerned at all about the alleged
subjects that practicing engineers need to master.
quality shortcomings of entry-level engineers.
Most Engineering students already require
There are enough regulations and checks-andsignificantly long period to actually get their
balances that guarantee the public’s health, welfare
baccalaureate degrees (compared to the nominal
and safety. “If it ain’t broke do not fix it.”
time advertised by schools.)
The threshold for entry into Engineering is
The proposed changes will make it harder to
significantly lower than the threshold used in
become an engineer. We already observe in many
Medicine, Dentistry, and Law. The result is lower
parts of the world a decline in the propensity of
quality (breadth and depth of knowledge) of
young people to choose Engineering as a career
Engineering entry-level practitioners compared to
path. What is the logic, then, in making entry
new physicians or lawyers. In the long run, the
requirements even more difficult and costly? It
difference contributes to the lower status of
would make the Engineering profession even less
engineers, compared to other professionals.
attractive!
The solution that many Engineering enterprises
The suggestion to impose a new set of requirements
adopted to overcome educational deficiencies is to
on engineers is not likely to be adopted by all
provide on-the-job training and long
jurisdictions. The result would be that engineers
apprenticeships. These solutions are costly, and
who are recognized in one jurisdiction would not
they create specialized engineers who are trained to be eligible for recognition in another. The question
be successful only in a specific environment – rather “who is a real engineer” will damage our
than being better trained for a wide spectrum of
community. We will witness fragmentation of the
tasks. Society would be better off if the resources
were invested in better academic training focused
on a wider set of job-related skills.
The advancements in computing and information
technology have transformed some of the traditional
Engineering disciplines by basing an increasing
fraction of the practice on computing-based
solutions. The increasing complexity of support
software, and the dependency of Engineering on
computing tools, have not yet affected the curricula
(as they should). Once the realization sets in that a
large new component of education in areas such as
algorithms and information assurance is needed for
all Engineering students, there will be no way to
‘cram’ the additional material in the existing 4-year
framework.
profession, confuse of the public, and suffer
reduced stature.
It is not at all clear that the additional education
that engineers may need beyond the B.Sc./B.Eng
degree is inside their discipline (or in an
Engineering department of a university). It may be
better to encourage engineers instead to acquire
graduate-level knowledge in other areas, such as
Business (through an MBA). The mere proposal to
add 30 credits or “add a degree” indicates that the
proposers have not thought the proposal through,
and have not defined the benefits of the additional
education to the practitioners and their clients and
customers.
Additional reading:
The American Society of Civil Engineers: Academic Prerequisites for Licensure and Professional Practice,
ASCE Policy Statement 465, on-line: http://www.asce.org/pressroom/news/policy_details.cfm?hdlid=15, October 2004,
accessed 1 June 2007.
The European Commission: The Bologna Process; on-line:
http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/educ/bologna/bologna_en.html, updated 15 May 2007, accessed 1 June 2007.
B. Friedland and P. Dorato: A Case for the Doctor of Engineering as a First Professional Degree, Engineering Education,
Volume 77, Number 7-8, pages 707-13, Apr-May 1987.
John W. Norton Jr. et al.: The First Professional Degree: A Historic Opportunity, Journal of Professional Issues in
Engineering. Education and Practice, Volume 127, Issue 4, pp. 197-201, 2001.
Jeffrey S. Russell, Brewer Stouffer and Stuart G. Walesh: The First Professional Degree: A Historic Opportunity, Volume
126, Issue 2, pp. 54-63, April 2000.
The US National Academy of Engineering: The Engineer of 2020, Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2004.
The US National Academy of Engineering: Education the Engineer of 2020, Washington, DC: The National Academies
Press, 2004.