Whats the difference between an Engineer & a Engineer Tech?

[tboo]

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.

 

[amdhunter]

Engineer Tech has the word Tech in it.

 

[her209]

An Engineer Tech doesn't do any engineering. They build and test the designs of an Engineer.

 

[Engineer]

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

 

[Fenixgoon]

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

but i want both

 

[bignateyk]

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.

 

[Modelworks]

Engineer = sit at desk
tech = works in field

 

[iGas]

Engineer = sit at desk
tech = works in field

This.

Engineer Tech does all the boring legwork for Engineers.

Engineers tasks generally are supervise, meeting, PR, and sales.

 

[Bignate603]

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

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

 

[rcpratt]

Techs aren't real engineers.

 

[iGas]

Techs aren't real engineers.

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.

 

[Gibson486]

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.

 

[Imdmn04]

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.

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.

 

[Fayd]

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.

bullshit.

both engineers in my family have hands-on experience in building their own and others' designs.

to answer the OP, the tech implements, the engineer designs and implements.

 

[tboo]

bullshit.

both engineers in my family have hands-on experience in building their own and others' designs.

to answer the OP, the tech implements, the engineer designs and implements.

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

 

[Jeff7]

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

This was how it was described to me as well.
The instructors in the engineering department were almost entirely involved with academics and research, and most had the title of Doctor. In the engineering technology, everyone was from industry with something like 15-20+ years of experience. The engineers got blasted with calculus and theory everywhere, but got very little lab time. In the engineering technology program, there was more use of "canned" equations from handbooks, more practical application, and more lab time.

I switched from engineering to engineering technology in my.....hm, 3rd semester? I don't remember exactly. I always had a tough time with calc in part because I was at college to acquire skills that'd help keep me out of the low-end jobs I'd been in up to that point - things like retail and warehouse work, where the most mental involvement you'd need would be the collective might of perhaps 20 neurons.
Calculus seemed to have me doing a bunch of stuff that all looked fun on paper...but didn't do anything. Wow, ok, so I can take an equation, graph it, then revolve that line around an axis, and find the volume of the enclosed region. Great! And if I had a way of determining the equation that represents the geometry of an existing container, I could easily see how that might be useful. (Or I could just get some water and a graduated cylinder.) A lot of it made no sense to me because it was all abstract concepts, with no practical examples or word problems employed in its instruction. It wasn't until several months after graduating that I had one of those little revelations about what calculus was all about, and what it might mean outside of some repetitive mathematical exercises.

So, in retrospect, what I'd liked to have seen:
- Calc classes that were taught in a manner which was somewhat relevant to the engineering major, or which would at least use some examples of practical applications of the equations and mathematical wackiness.
- Some way of joining the engineering technology and calc-based engineering paths, though this would likely turn it into a 5-6 year degree, instead of 4 years for either one. Knowing the theory behind something is good and all, but I think it's also good to have a good idea of how it all works out in practice. (As in, it'd be nice to even know what some of the equipment looks like. What's an industrial directional control valve look like? Oh, I know what that is! A DCV is a little rectangular box drawn on paper, with a few other lines and arrows in it. What does a real one look like? Uh...it's a three-dimensional rectangular solid, maybe?)


I guess it also depends on where you want to go. If you want to go into teaching, or do things more related to research, then an engineering degree would probably work better. If you want to work on things, maybe build some stuff, and get to work in the field or in industry, then engineering technology is the way to go.
I don't know if you have to look for an accredited school or anything like that; I know the engineering technology program at Penn State was accredited by ABET, so I guess that's a good thing? In any case, I got a B.S. in mechanical engineering technology, and I have a job doing engineery-type stuff, some of which often includes me doing the design, specifying parts, and prototyping, so it works for me. It's kind of neat to be able to see something through from concept to design to prototype to it hitting the shop floor.

 

[Bignate603]

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.

That's laughably incorrect. All the techs at work are good at what they do, but honestly most of them understand the design of the stuff we do about as much as a good mechanic understands car design. They've got great insight into some things like installation and how to service things but they don't have all the knowledge or skills (not that they are stupid, just that they have no training in it) to deal with all the different aspects of making a design that can actually be manufactured, be within budget, and provide the best performance.

 

[Jimmah]

Tech = 3 years College, Engi = 4 years Uni

Techs do get the added advantage of being able to go to some uni's up here for another 2 years to get both the diploma and degree.

Tech+Engi is a better use of time IMO.

 

[Imp]

All I know is that I'm an engineer employed as a tech. Shitty job market 2 years ago, my additional 1 year of school, much more difficult curriculumn and $25k more in tuition got me a leg up. At my job, techs get paid $45k starting (max $50k), engineers in training get $50k (max at $65 in this position).

Being a bitch to engineers, some of whom were in my class, has been insightful. Most hate to be in the field, and they can't CAD. For fuc*s sake, I took the same CAD classes as you, why can I do it? They also refuse work and bitch about having to do grunt work because "they aren't learning anything", then make me do the grunt work 5 times over because they couldn't plan it properly the first or second time through.

I will say though that engineers have better writing skills than techs. The tech grads at my place are borderline illiterate. The engineers are literate... Let's just leave it there.

 

[IGBT]

Eng.Tech knows how to solder.

 

[litttlechica]

My dad has a degree in Electrical Engineering Technology from a University and I"m not sure how long it was supposed to take him because he did night classes and it took him most of my life to get it. He is a senior robotic instructor now and teaches people how to program robots.
I have a degree in Electrical Engineering and I work at an Architecture/Engineering Firm. My classes were a lot more theory than my dad's were and they tell you next to nothing about actually applying what you learn. From my experience, everything useful has been learned in the field.
To be frank, I think my dad got a better knowledge of electrical stuff than I did but having the official engineering degree is good especially if you want to follow up with a PE. I'm not sure if you can do that if you get engineering tech.

 

[Nik]

<-- engineering tech

<-- not an engineer

 

[Kreon]

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.

 

[Jeff7]

Tech = 3 years College, Engi = 4 years Uni

Techs do get the added advantage of being able to go to some uni's up here for another 2 years to get both the diploma and degree.

Tech+Engi is a better use of time IMO.

In my case, Mechanical Engineering Technology was a 131-credit 4-year degree at Penn State.

 

[Bignate603]

Eng.Tech knows how to solder.

I won't argue with that one. :biggrin: