Second Degree

To the Editor: It was interesting to read Mr. Kuznia’s article “To a Higher Degree” in the March issue of Mechanical Engineering. He presents an either-or position regarding pursuing an M.S. in engineering or an M.B.A.

I say why not both, as the decision should be based on where you are in your career and the prospects for the future. I can cite my own career as an example.

When I graduated in 1950 with a B.S.M.E., I had focused on a career in machine design. After a few years of work in that field, I found that I was not suited for that profession and started to pursue graduate work focused on heat power. I then went to work for Standard Oil of Indiana at their Whiting refinery and their general engineering department, and continued my pursuit of an M.S. degree. I was their refinery furnace design engineer.

In 1955, I joined Argonne National Laboratory in their reactor engineering division and was their representative at the Idaho site where I worked for two years. During that time, I completed my studies and dissertation for an M.S.M.E. from the University of Idaho. After transferring back to Illinois, I was assigned project management responsibilities and determined that if my career was to advance, I should work on an M.B.A. This took four years of evening school at Northwestern University, and I graduated in 1965.

I became the assistant division director and later the director of program administration until I retired in 1990.

Because of my engineering and management background, I was asked in 1968 to develop a program in engineering management at a small engineering college, Midwest College of Engineering, and was an adjunct professor teaching management subjects in the evening. Thus, I had a dual career, one in research management and one in academics, because of my dual degrees of M.S. and M.B.A.

A young engineer today must look at the opportunities presented, and decide what they are interested in doing with their career and what education is required to achieve his or her goals.

I consider myself very fortunate that I was able to be at the right place at the right time with the necessary academic credentials, which gave me a very enjoyable career.

Emil L. Martinec,
Chicago  

Editor’s note: The author is a past vice president of the former ASME General Engineering Technical Group.

To the Editor: I just finished reading the March 2008 article “To a Higher Degree,” pitting the classic M.B.A. program against the master’s in engineering. I have seen so many articles promoting the M.B.A. program, but I can say that I have never seen an article about advanced degrees in engineering management. As the article compares and contrasts the M.B.A. to the M.S.E., a disservice is done to those reading by not including a discussion on an advanced degree in engineering management. While the M.B.A. has its leanings towards the business side and the M.S.E. primarily has focus on specific technical disciplines, the engineering management degree provides a link between those from engineering backgrounds to the business activities found in most business enterprises.

As many of our younger engineers have considered advanced degrees, especially the M.B.A., in their personal development, I have discussed the advantage of a Master of Science in engineering management with them. The team-based approach and courses found in these programs allow them to fill the gap between the undergraduate engineering degree and actual business activities that are found in our organization—quality management, project management, financial analysis, systems integration, and personnel management, to name just a few.

While completing the courses to earn the degree, students can actually solve problems or projects at their organization during their learning process.

Many respected colleges and universities across the United States have advanced programs in engineering management. I hope that we could see an article in the future in Mechanical Engineering including the option of an advanced degree in engineering management.

Greg Towsley,
Olathe, Kansas

Editor’s note: According to the American Society of Engineering Education, in the academic year ending in the spring of 2007 there were 67 programs in the United States offering a Master of Science in engineering management. They granted 2,114 degrees, up from just over 1,800 in the previous academic year. There are also 17 programs in the U.S. that offer a bachelor’s degree in engineering management. ASME also conducts a management certification program.

To the Editor: As a young engineer who has made the difficult decision of pursuing an M.S.E. over an M.B.A., I was interested to see the logic of your March article “To a Higher Degree.” Although I agree with the author that the decision is very difficult, and should be determined on an individual basis, the article seemed to present the issue in an oversimplified “check yes or no” list of generic questions.

I hope this reduction of the decision process does not prematurely push a prospective student in the wrong direction. As I went down this checklist, I found myself choosing many answers that would place me in the M.B.A. track: I work for a small product development company, I have entrepreneurial interests of my own, and I have broader interests in other fields than most of my engineering peers.

But in the end, I chose to pursue an M.S. in mechanical engineering at the University of Minnesota, where programs such as the new product design and business development virtually erase the line between M.B.A.’s and engineers, creating a cross-functional team not seen in most M.B.A. or M.S.E. programs.

Whether you are pushing the boundaries in the laboratory or the boardroom, having a deeper understanding of both is always beneficial. No matter what track of study is pursued, the understanding of “the other side” should always be incorporated.

Hopefully, the next article that discusses the professional development of engineers will involve more engineers who have made these difficult decisions and the reasoning behind their decisions.

Evan Leingang,
St. Louis Park, Minn.

Sustainable? Says Who?

To the Editor: The U. S. National Academy of Engineering lists sustainability among its Grand Challenges (April), but it advocates goals that are clearly not sustainable.

The definition of sustainability appears to be whatever an advocate chooses. The concept is intuitive; it appears to defy quantification.

The sustainability of a system is maximized when entropy generated by the system is minimized. Unless somebody has a better definition, I suggest that sustainability is the reciprocal of entropy, like the cosine of an angle is the reciprocal of the sine, or R is the reciprocal of U. Sustainability = 1/Entropy.

The first listed goal, solar energy, which creates no entropy, is sustainable by any definition. It takes the forms of solar heating, solar absorption cooling, photovoltaic power generation, and wind power generation. Most of the wind turbines, connected to the grid, generate 1.5 to 2 MW day and night; they do not require energy storage.

The second goal, fusion, which destroys hydrogen, is the process by which our sun destroys itself. Even if the reaction becomes “sustaining”—produces more energy than it consumes—fusion will not protect the planet. It is not sustainable.

The third goal, carbon sequestration, does not reduce the entropy generated by coal-burning systems. The program proposes to expend energy—and generate entropy—to mitigate greenhouse gases. Any system that burns irreplaceable resources is not sustainable. Clean coal is an oxymoron, invented by publicists to promote the coal industry.

Minimizing entropy is the mission of mechanical engineers. Hubris, politics, and the pursuit of big money have obscured this objective.

John L. Hill,
Albuquerque, N.M.

Lapse in Diction

To the Editor: I am disappointed in the editing of our magazine. For example, in the article “Wind in a Bottle” (May), the author refers to the storage of “1,000 MW of power.” One stores energy, of course, not power.

Donald S. Collins,
Bridgton, Maine