Since I became a chemical engineer some 50 years ago, our profession has changed.
Back when I matriculated, the normal requirement for graduation was 144 credits. Not 120 like the rest of the educational curricula, but 144. And, since we were a technical curriculum, one must recognize that a bunch of courses also required laboratories. So, when one said 144 credits were required, it did not mean that one needed to 18 hours of classes a term, but closer to 21 or 23, since a lab course only was awarded 1 credit for each 3 or 4 hours of lab work
Our program included a full complement of chemistry (basic chem, organic chem, physical chem, analytic chem, plus thermodynamics); basic Chem E (unit operations, mass/thermal, and momentum transfer,chemical reactor design and reaction, and process design); financial analysis such as cost estimation, rates of return, corporate finance; mathematics- calculus, differential equations, linear algebra, plus introductory courses in aeronautical, electrical, civil, mechanical, and metallurgical engineering.
But, over the years, the intensity of education- and the number of required credits- have dropped. Now, we are talking about 120 credits. The loss of the financial component and other analytical skills is a change to be lamented.
Sure, many of our profession have found their way from petrochemicals to bioengineering. But, too many of those folks are no longer acting as a ChemE, but as bioscientists. Sure, that’s acceptable- but that effort lacks the integration of the skills of a ChemE curriculum.
We need to rethink our changes. Bring back the financial components, reacquaint our students with mathematical foundations, stressing analytical components. It’s one of the reasons why we are so well paid.
The world still needs trained ChemEs- but those that can fulfill all the aspects of a complete Chem E curriculum.
I don’t know anything about this but it seems like they are regressing instead of progressing by dropping the credits and financial components. You are such a multi-talented person Roy!
I thank you for your kind compliment, Martha. And, I really do lament situations where we lower the criteria for entry. We need the best of the best to keep our industry at its zenith.
This is not the only curriculum being watered down. I know a couple of people who are actuaries. The tests to become one used to be super hard and almost everyone failed one or more of them the first time. Many quit along the way and took other positions in this field. Now, the powers that be want to make it easier. Is it warranted? Not an actuary, so I don’t know, but I wonder how common this is becoming.
AFter I read about that professor who was fired because his students thought his organic chemistry course (which used to be the weeding course to get rid of those student who were not going to finish up in PreMEd) was too hard, I can believe that all the curricula have been terrible watered down, Alana.
Those courses sound hard! It make my head hurt. I guess I’m not made that way. I hope I can make an intelligent comment. Is it not true that the educational standard and requirement in North America are not up to par with other parts of the world – Europe and Asia?
That’s generally true for the younger children’s grades. Our university and college programs are among the best. For what it’s worth, there are some 20,000 Chem E’s in the USA- and there are slightly more than 6000 living ChemE alumni from MIT. How’s that for a statistic?