Metallurgical PE license in CA slated for elimination
Metallurgical PE license in CA slated for elimination
(OP)
Currently, three Title Act PE licenses in CA have been slated for elimination by the Board. They are Agricultural, Industrial, and Metallurgical Engineering. Those currently holding a PE in these categories can maintain the license, but no new examinations will be offered after elimination. There was no info on the timeline of the "phase out", but the Joint Committee on Boards is waiting to make it's final recommendation to the Board.
I took the exam last Oct. (and thankfully passed), and am saddened by this turn of events. I'm sure that most metallurgical and materials engineers will pursue graduate degrees rather than obtain licensure, but I don't think it's good for promoting the profession among prospective students, among other things. What are others thoughts?
-Tim
I took the exam last Oct. (and thankfully passed), and am saddened by this turn of events. I'm sure that most metallurgical and materials engineers will pursue graduate degrees rather than obtain licensure, but I don't think it's good for promoting the profession among prospective students, among other things. What are others thoughts?
-Tim





RE: Metallurgical PE license in CA slated for elimination
I agree with you. Either way, you can still obtain a PE license in other states, and having the credential still looks good on your resume.
I sometimes wonder why CA leads the way in the most unusual current events and behavior.
RE: Metallurgical PE license in CA slated for elimination
Maui
RE: Metallurgical PE license in CA slated for elimination
RE: Metallurgical PE license in CA slated for elimination
That scares me more than the removal of the Metallurgy PE. Although I dont see a large amount of value in a PE for me personally I do respect and agree with the value of a PE to society and industry.
I guess that cost cutting is now impacting saftey agian. This is unconcionable (ok I spelt that wrong) and is going to cause all kinds of troubles. (IMHO)
Nick
I love materials science!
RE: Metallurgical PE license in CA slated for elimination
Carburize--got a reference for that, or more specifics?
Re the topic of this thread--I'm not a member of any of those three fields but that's really a shame. I'm kind of surprised it's coming from CA, who otherwise seems to take licensing (and various other rules and regs) very seriously; they're one of the states who has *separate* licensing for CE and SE.
Hg
Eng-Tips guidelines: FAQ731-376
RE: Metallurgical PE license in CA slated for elimination
Design-Build
TSPE has been a longtime proponent of qualifications-based selection for project delivery through the Professional Services Procurement Act. While design-build may enhance the speed of design and completion of a project, and foster harmony among members of the design-build team for the project, it also will make it more difficult for the owner to measure the quality and value received. When the design team no longer works directly for the owner but with or for the contractor, the fiduciary relationship is changed, thus increasing the risk to the owner.
We feel that design-build may not be an appropriate delivery system for public entities, where the expenditure of tax dollars is under consideration. We believe that the state should move cautiously on further extending the use of design-build on public projects.
Agency Consolidation
TSPE believes that consolidation of all professional boards is clearly not in the best interest of the public. The Texas Board of Professional Engineers governs the license procedure for engineers and provides penalties for those engineers that violate provisions of the Engineering Practice Act. To combine this board with other professional boards would not be efficient or save taxpayer money since the Board sets fees paid by engineers to administer its activities. In fact, the Act clearly defines that no money shall ever be paid for the administration of the Act from the General Fund.
RE: Metallurgical PE license in CA slated for elimination
RE: Metallurgical PE license in CA slated for elimination
Re design/build, Texas isn't the first state by a long shot to be heading in this direction, and many major construction projects have been done this way around the country for many years (and proudly reported in ASCE's magazine). There are plenty of arguments to be made against design-build (none of which belong in this thread) but I really don't see it as part of a slippery slope to eliminate PEs.
Hg
Eng-Tips guidelines: FAQ731-376
RE: Metallurgical PE license in CA slated for elimination
Sorry to hear about a move to allow "design-build" in any state. It is a dangerous practice treat engineering as a management approval process of "design" work with minimal involvement other than a final over-view of the time sheets as the basis for an engineering stamp.
RE: Metallurgical PE license in CA slated for elimination
RE: Metallurgical PE license in CA slated for elimination
Hg
Eng-Tips guidelines: FAQ731-376
RE: Metallurgical PE license in CA slated for elimination
It is sad to see slippage in the encouragement of professional development.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Corrosion never sleeps, but it can be managed.
http://www.trenttube.com/Trent/tech_form.htm
RE: Metallurgical PE license in CA slated for elimination
RE: Metallurgical PE license in CA slated for elimination
RE: Metallurgical PE license in CA slated for elimination
Paragraph 1001.053
RE: Metallurgical PE license in CA slated for elimination
What can one build for $20,000 that could pose a danger to the public? I guess any number of indoor hanging appurtenances that could fall on someone.
Hg
Eng-Tips guidelines: FAQ731-376
RE: Metallurgical PE license in CA slated for elimination
RE: Metallurgical PE license in CA slated for elimination
The state DOT still builds a lot of county bridges. I'll have to ask around about what SOP is these days.
Hg
Eng-Tips guidelines: FAQ731-376