Whats the difference between an Engineer & a Engineer Tech?

[jteef]

in electrical engineering vs electrical engineering tech as far as theory and design understanding goes,

electrical engineers understand and can implement maxwell's equations.
techs can implement and understand ohms law.

 

[thepd7]

From my basic understanding engineering techs work for engineers. Or am I missing something? My local tech school offers degrees in engineering tech & a lot of the grads from there that I know call themselves engineers but these are guys I know who had a hard time with Calc. I in high school. They don't seem to be true engineering material. Any insight is appreciated.

They aren't engineers. They are technicians. Nothing wrong with being a technician, you are more hands on and you get paid less though.

Tech = more hands on (build things). Engineer typically = more design (math, theory, etc).

but i want both 🙁

There are a lot of engineers that are hands on, just depends on the role and company.

Engineers get paid more because the work is a lot more mundane.

Techs get to do all the fun hands on stuff but don't get paid nearly as well.

Techs generally have a 2 year degree, engineers 4 year.

lol I don't know about the mundane part but the hands on and paid less part is correct.

At my job that's typically the difference. Also, the salary range for a tech is usually 20-30% lower than for normal engineers.

Sounds about right.

IMHO, the different between a good engineer and a good tech is that one in sales/management, and the other is doing the work. And, the piece of paper that they got at school is another thing that separate them.

A good tech, would design and implement circles around an average engineer, because of the tech hand on experience.

I see enough people have already pointed out how ridiculous of a statement this is. That being said, it's definitely true about me (BSEE now doing field engineering/sales) just not all engineers.

Techs do all the bitch work. If they need something, an engineer designs and a tech builds it.

This is not to say that an engineer cannot build the stuff....If you work for a smaller company, an engineer would be expected to do it all. If you work for a big company, you would probably have a tech do it, but this still doe snot describe it fully.

It really depends on the nature of the engineer. Some engineers have this need to do all attitude, so a tech would not fit well in the place. in other places, some engineers do not want to see the design once it gets past the cad stage. techs work well in those places.

That said, a tech has to be knowledgeable on some stuff. Some engineers give the tech the freedom to test as he wishes as long as he documents results that are needed. Lots of those techs can go on to become an actual engineer. Other times, engineers do not give them that freedom and they are purely a test script machine.

great description.

So its the design part where the advanced math & physics come into play?

Yes. To be honest, I don't think it has anything to do with the actual equations or math you learn in school because a BSEE is pretty much just an introduction to all the types of circuits you can build. I think it has much more to do with can your mind wrap itself around this type of stuff so when you get into a job can you learn how to do what they need you to do.

Cliffs: It depends on the school offering the engineering tech degree.

At a place like ITT Tech (or any other 2 year eng tech program and some 4 year), it will be basically field work. Think field engineers on construction sites (who make sure everything is done right). It can also include light design.

At other schools, usually older eng tech programs, the eng tech degree is basically the same as an engineering degree. Most people from my school go on to get their PE, and do a lot of design work. It can also be used as a budget option if you plan to go to grad school (which is what I'm doing).

I can attest more to the second, as that's the program I'm involved in. The difference between my program and other schools around me is the level of engineering theory. The difference is that the full engineering programs spend a lot of time deriving equations and talking about how things were developed, where the technology programs tend to focus on application. The classes cover the same material (with a few minor differences).

A perfect example is the surveying class at my school, and the surveying class at the school next to us that has a full engineering program. Ours has 2 hours of lecture and 4 hours of lab. Theirs has 3 hours of lecture, and 2 hours of lab. Both are 4 credits, and the syllibi are almost identical. Theirs spends more time on development of the formulas used for correcting measurements, as well as the theory behind the formulas, whereas mine spends more time on applying the formulas, learning the equipment, and making results (such as maps, etc).

EDIT: I should also add that these differences vary greatly with respect to region. In New England and the Atlantic states it has less to do with eng tech vs eng, and more with how many credits the program is (4 year vs 2 year). In these areas the only real difference between eng and eng tech (4 year degree) is how long you need to practice to site for PE. With eng tech its usually 8 years, and eng 4 years. But in some palces (like Maine) both are 4 years. There are some states where you can't sit for PE if you have an eng tech degree (of any length). However, if some groups have their way, it will be moot as a masters will be required to sit for PE.

Let me just say this: where I grew up (Texas), the only place offering "Engineering Technology" degrees was ITT Tech. Now that I'm in the NE I have seen a few engineering schools I would say are quality which have engineering technology programs.

I don't think there's anything wrong with being more hands on, I just wish people (specifically the schools offering these degrees) would stop using the word engineering technology when it's training to be a technician, not an engineer.

 

[SuperjetMatt]

I just wish people (specifically the schools offering these degrees) would stop using the word engineering technology when it's training to be a technician, not an engineer.

This.
I wish I had known that crucial difference when I first started going to school 12 years ago.
I could have saved myself 2 years of a nearly worthless AAS degree in EET and I could have went for a BSEE like I should have. I eventually did get it last year, but damn. I wish I had got it a lot earlier.

 

[96Firebird]

I'm about to graduate with my BS in Mech. Eng. My roommate is at the same school (Rochester Institute of Technology) and is enrolled in the Mech. Eng. Tech degree program. It is pretty much just the math and science that is the difference. He also doesn't do nearly as much CAD work as we do, but he had some that included FEA (which I was surprised about). I don't mind the hands-on stuff, it keeps me interested. But I know some other soon-to-be-graduates that can't machine or use tools to save their lives. I hope that gives me a leg up when competing against them for jobs this summer...

 

[ShawnD1]

Complete bullshit, a good engineer will have the necessary hands-on skills to do the tech's job if needed. But the reciprocal cannot be said.

An automotive mechanical engineer can do what a mechanic does with a little bit of hands-on practice. But you can't exactly tell a mechanic to use thermodynamics and Newtonian physics to design an engine.

CAN, but they don't. Engineers very rarely have any hands on experience, so they rely on feedback from the hands on people in order to make a good product.
When you don't have a mechanic double checking the engineer's work, you get really messed up results. Why does the engine need to be pulled before the spark plug can be changed? Why does the tire need to be removed before the battery can be changed? Why does this car use a sensor and not have a dip stick for the oil? Why is the clutch so hard to replace?

In theory, techs are supposed to bridge that gap between hands on monkey work and abstract theoretical work. Engineers with PhDs design a product and list all of the specifications, then lesser trained engineers and techs are responsible for putting it together in a way that is easy to access, easy to install, easy to fix, and easy to dismantle. Going back to the car analogy, highly trained engineers are the ones figuring out what parts are needed for the car to work properly. Lesser trained engineers figure out how to put all of this together. The engineering tech doesn't need to know why the car uses module 34783-W-R to control the timing, but he needs to know how big it is, how much it weighs, what it should connect to, and how well it needs to be protected.

Most people who graduate with a 4 year engineering degree end up doing the standard 2 year engineering tech work. In my office, the level of education and experience is very broad, but we're mostly doing the same work.

 

[Jeff7]

I'm about to graduate with my BS in Mech. Eng. My roommate is at the same school (Rochester Institute of Technology) and is enrolled in the Mech. Eng. Tech degree program. It is pretty much just the math and science that is the difference. He also doesn't do nearly as much CAD work as we do, but he had some that included FEA (which I was surprised about). I don't mind the hands-on stuff, it keeps me interested. But I know some other soon-to-be-graduates that can't machine or use tools to save their lives. I hope that gives me a leg up when competing against them for jobs this summer...

Huh...at Penn State, it was just about the opposite. The METs used Pro/Engineer in quite a few classes, with at least two classes dedicated to it almost 100%. By senior year, the MEs had trouble doing just about anything in Pro/E, because to my knowledge, their main exposure to it was one day a week during an engineering intro course during the freshman year.
METs also did FEA - two courses in the use of ANSYS. The first one dealt with the old style interface, and use of text commands. The second course started easing into use of ANSYS Workbench, which is more GUI oriented. This makes it more pleasant to work with, but it's also less flexible than being able to enter every (single, goddamn, convoluted) command by hand. We also dabbled a little bit in Pro/E's Mechanica package.

And you mentioned machining - the METs had a machining type course, where we spent a few weeks at different "stations" to learn a bit about some processes. The stations included engine lathes, sheetmetal forming, welding, manual milling, and CNC milling. That was actually quite useful to help see what goes into making things, to help later on with concepts like design-for-manufacturability. Sure you can design an insanely awesome bottlecap, but if each one requires 2 hours of machining time and a lab tech on staff to make sure each one is in-spec, your design probably won't ever make it to market.


Also mentioned somewhere in the thread was what happens if you work for a small company. Yeah, you wind up doing a bit of everything, partly because you might be the only one there in your particular discipline.🙂
You might end up taking it from a pencil sketch to a CAD model, then make the shop drawings, then build the prototype, then back to CAD to fix what you screwed up or forgot about🙂, then to prototype v2, then update the shop drawings, then oversee the first production run, then write the manual.....and so on.
And they treat you like a god - in that you are assumed to have an infinite amount of time and an infinite amount of capability. 😛


Also...deadlines are fun.

 

[ShawnD1]

Also...deadlines are fun.

lol

The worst is when nobody seems to know why it's going so slow. We sent some stuff to another group for checking, and we're waiting and waiting. Call a few times and they're like "what? we were checking something? can you send it again?"
8 weeks later....

 

[96Firebird]

Thats weird that you guys had to do a lot of CAD work as techs... My school teaches the 1st or 2nd year ME students Pro/E. I've never used it because I transfered in as a 3rd year from a community college (both to save money and to get my associates in engineering sciences). However, I did have to take the lab that went with the class, where we machined and made what was designed in CAD. And we had a class where the lab used ANSYS, which was pretty pointless because the class was almost FEA on paper, then do it with computers which is easier and quicker. I prefer SolidWorks for CAD and FEA (Simulation), but would like to get more familiar with Autodesk's offerings as well. I used AutoCAD and Inventor in high school, but haven't really used it since.