×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

not up to snuff.

not up to snuff.

not up to snuff.

(OP)
Background;
A gentleman graduated from a university with a BE (civil), then applied to a many local firms looking for work as an engineer, however came up stumps and got a job as a civil draftee with the idea of over time moving into engineering.
The gentleman after 6 years now has a drafting with some engineering job description (design daftsmen). He would like to start to apply for his certification as an engineer.

Issue; the gentleman has requested his supervising engineers (aka my former boss) sign off on reports of his career, they have refused saying they don't think he has what it takes to be an engineer, also stating that he should have never got his BE as he got it in dubious circumstances (I don't know the details). I have been approached because I did work at the company to sign off on his reports; I haven't made up my mind on this yet.  

Question; is his supervising engineer the man who should make this call, or should he just sign as appropriate the reports if true, and let the board handle the rest.
 

An expert is a man who has made all the mistakes which can be made in a very narrow field

RE: not up to snuff.

Your bosses are essentially being asked to vouch for this person as a qualified engineer.  Seems to me that they're within their purview if they consider him unqualified.

TTFN

FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

RE: not up to snuff.

It's up to the former bosses as to whether they should "sign off" on his reports.  Typically, if a semi-engineer has some experience I still would agree to serve as a reference but with the full understanding that I have to say honest stuff.

 

RE: not up to snuff.

What is a career report? All anyone can attest to his normal work duties. Which usually does not exceed a few lines. There is something wrong with the picture.  I find it hard to believe someone will not help someone advance.

On the other hand the boss has no right to say whether or not he has in him to become an engineer or not. He did pass the exam and got a degree, in that regard why does he need his approval? Perhaps the "report" is not written correctly, if at all needed.

Rafiq Bulsara
http://www.srengineersct.com

RE: not up to snuff.

(OP)
Rafiq,
For Chartered status (similar to PE) in our part of the world you are required to submit for review detailed career reports stating experience in 25-30 different aspects as defined by our local engineering org. This generally adds up to 15 pages or more. The defining requirements for each category are meant engineering related (as I say meant), for example copied from the book:

C1.5    Identifies constraints on potential engineering solutions         
 a.    Identifies the interrelationship of social, physical, environmental, political, financial and cultural issues with the proposed engineering solutions
b.   Identifies professional risks, statutory responsibilities and liabilities
c.    Implements Occupational Health and Safety and other statutory requirements
d.   Identifies hazards and consequent risks, and initiates appropriate safety and disaster management measures
e.    Identifies long term environmental and sustainability issues associated with engineering activities

An expert is a man who has made all the mistakes which can be made in a very narrow field

RE: not up to snuff.

rowE:

Ah thanks, I forgot that you are down under! I just took PE to be being in the USA! smile

And there are people in USA that think only their requirements are odd and cumbersome. (I never thought so. I am happy to be here.)

Rafiq Bulsara
http://www.srengineersct.com

RE: not up to snuff.

RE...I tend to agree with JAE on this.  I've been in a similar situation before and I spoke to the individual telling him of my obligation to be honest in my assessment. I did not consider him to be qualified for the examination that he was taking, as I had worked as his direct supervisor for over 15 years.  He withdrew me as a reference and went elsewhere.  He got the recommendations to take the exam from others and after several tries, passed the test (not engineering...a pseudo-subset).  

I've wrestled with whether I should have just gone ahead with my candid assessment and not discussed it with him beforehand (he would possibly have been denied the opportunity to take the exam), but I think I did the right thing.

Rafiq....it sounds like the application in Oz is similar to the PE for the definition of "responsible charge" of engineering works.  Some boards are loose on that interpretation, some are tight.

RE: not up to snuff.

The world is full of pompous pricks.  The supervising engineer should sign the papers; let the man take his shot at the test.  If the test can't weed out the qualified from the unqualified, then the test is a waste of time.

RE: not up to snuff.

dvd...I disagree.  The test is not the ultimate decider, just one piece of the qualification apparatus.

RE: not up to snuff.

I am with dvd. Plus I have not seen (may be that exist) not seen any forms requiring verification or recommendation for a PE requiring evaluation of his technical skill to be or not granting a PE. But just to testify as his skills were adequate to duties one was performing under their supervision.

I also do not think denial from one or two pricks, ever has stopped anyone getting a PE as long as he is otherwise qualified. The recommendation are required but not necessarily from a particular person.

Heck, I have had told them (truthfully), here is my experience and I cannot find my previous boss or supervisor because either the company no longer exist or it was in a foreign country.
 

Rafiq Bulsara
http://www.srengineersct.com

RE: not up to snuff.

RE,
I have lost touch with the current examining criteria here in Australia, but if he is merely asking you to attest that his reports are accurate, I don't see why not to sign.  Neither do I see why his boss wouldn't sign, but he must have his reasons.

Is there an exam?  I wasn't aware of one.

If you can truly sign his reports but still have concerns about his becoming an engineer, you might want to write to the examining authority who will appoint the interview committee.  Let them deal with any such issues.  

RE: not up to snuff.

I am with dvd.  Has the engineer ask you (rowingengineer)
t0 to be a reference?
If so tell the truth as YOU KNOW it.
I wouldn't put anything in writing like  "he got it in dubious circumstances (I don't know the details)."
In very un-general terms if you don't know what your talking about and the issue concerns the reputation of someone you don't know anything about Shut the _ _ _ _ up.
I think it is very unethical to put as much as you have on a world wide web-site.  IF POME land is like the USA ( and I would assume it is based on english common law) you could be sued for slander.
This website is supposed to be for PFOFESSIONALS. Dealing in rumors and imcomplete facts seems more like a bunch of imature high school twits, not what I would expect from professionals.    

RE: not up to snuff.

BJC...RowingEngineer has done nothing unethical. He has laid out an issue, anonymously, and has asked for input.  There is nothing wrong with that...it's one of the many qualities of such a forum.

RE: not up to snuff.

He has not laid out an issue. IT's not based on fact. IF he has the facts he should present them to the board and prevent this gentleman from ever soiling the reputation of all engineers.  Once the board has the facts they will decide.   

RE: not up to snuff.

(OP)
There is no "exam", only an interview (1hr) in regards to the reports with the assessor and two representatives of the institute. You can only fail the interview if during the interview it is found that you have lied, miss-represented facts ect in your reports.

BJC,
Please note the "also stating", that means my former boss used this as an excuse to the gentleman in his refusal to sign the reports.  I have no knowledge of his uni marks nor grading methods used. I have only included this as a reference to my former boss's thoughts.

I am not looking for advice on my responsibility, I have been asked to sign off on his reports of his work that I have been involved. I am yet to review the reports thoroughly and will decide on my path after I have reviewed the reports thoroughly.

My question was whether a supervising engineer should make the call, as to the fitness of an individual to become a certified engineer.  
 

An expert is a man who has made all the mistakes which can be made in a very narrow field

RE: not up to snuff.

"whether a supervising engineer should make the call, as to the fitness of an individual to become a certified engineer"

If not his supervisoring engineer, then who?

TTFN

FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

RE: not up to snuff.

Pat the one I know.

'Originally an acronym for the status of inmates sent to Australia: 'Prisoner of Mother England'.

At first used by the English to describe Australians (as anyone Australian must, obviously, have come from prison), now in a strange refersal used by Australians to designate anyone from England. "
"Oid loik ta waelcum tha pome baastud ta god's awn eu-uth, and ta remoind him we deown't loik stack-ap sticky beeks reound hee."

rowingengineer.  Fairly Read and review his reports, he may hit a home run on the third one, sounds like he has two strikes allready.

RE: not up to snuff.

RE,
I don't think it is correct to say that misrepresentation is the only reason for the interview panel to recommend against an applicant.  I have been on review panels, albeit not recently, and the quality of the reports as well as the interview itself certainly were factors.  I believe submittals by others concerning the applicant, addressed to the panel, are also considered in some cases.

RE: not up to snuff.

(OP)
Hokie,
You are probably right; I think my jaded opinion has developed due to my experiences on the assessment board in recent times, and DOT engineers applying for structural engineer cert. It all comes down to if you believe standard culverts are civil design or structural design or enginereing at all.  But I hadn't thought of submittals, I would expect them to be handled at the interview stage.

IRstuff,
The board should be the answer to that question, but I'm not that confident hence the discussion.

Thankyou everyone for your input, I have decided I am going to negotiate on behalf of the gent with the supervising engineer. I am going to suggest that the gent enter a development program for a minimum of two years.

An expert is a man who has made all the mistakes which can be made in a very narrow field

RE: not up to snuff.

Best wishes, RE.  The direct approach is almost always the best one.

RE: not up to snuff.

The Mentoring Maven (RE) strikes again!! That sounds like a reasonable approach, RE.  Good luck.

RE: not up to snuff.

IRSTUFF:

That decision lies with the board. The supervisor is not the board. There is no room for slander. Supervisor is free to not provide the recommendation. That is not mandatory.

Rafiq Bulsara
http://www.srengineersct.com

RE: not up to snuff.

In fact it is the policy of most companies in the USA, only to confirm employment and position of their former or current employees and not comment on their personality or competence.  

Rafiq Bulsara
http://www.srengineersct.com

RE: not up to snuff.

Also

Quote:

..it sounds like the application in Oz is similar to the PE for the definition of "responsible charge" of engineering works.  

How can one without being PE (prior to getting the license) be in responsible charge of engineering works?

Someone is misinterpreting the requirements. The requirements to be able to take the PE exams include engagement in engineering work, be able to perform calculations, write specs, evaluate existing conditions, knowledge of codes etc.

Rafiq Bulsara
http://www.srengineersct.com

RE: not up to snuff.

Here in the US, we are required to get letters of reference for the PE, in additon to the tests and all.  However, the requirements for those letters vary somewhat.  Some are worded such that they seem to be an assessment of technical skill, others more as personal references.  Consequently, someone you have worked with, but haven't actually met, may serve just fine as a reference in one state, while someone who has known you for 20 years, but hasn't worked with you, may serve just fine as a reference in another state.  With this kind of variation, it makes it hard to give a blanket recommendation of how it ought to be handled somewhere else, without being familiar with the wording of the requirements and how things are normally handled.

RE: not up to snuff.

To the contrary, an interview board in Australia (and that is what this thread is about) can form its own opinion of a person's aptitude for engineering by asking appropriate questions.  The board will include engineers in the specialty of the applicant.

RE: not up to snuff.

The idea of the referee/mentorship/experience record process in a licensure system is to prevent the licensure of people who got the degree but failed to gain the necessary skills, and of those who may have the necessary skills but lack the character to uphold the legal and ethical responsibilities of licensure.  It's a cheap stand-in for a proper formal internship/mentorship/apprenticeship program (which we should probably have!).

Sounds like a load of pompous crap, I know, but some of us take these legal and ethical responsibilities quite seriously.  Dunno what it was like at your school, but at mine it was quite hard to excel but dead easy to scrape by with a degree.  Not everyone with that fancy piece of paper is someone who I'd entrust my own life or the lives of my family members to, and that can literally be the case with a professional engineer's judgment.
 

RE: not up to snuff.

I once had a co-worker ask me to vouch for him so he could get a hand gun permit.  If there was one person who should never get a gun - he was the poster child.  But he got others to vouch (maybe they didn't want to piss him of) and so of course he got it.

Not everyone is cut out to be an engineer... And god knows we can do more damage than a handgun!!

RE: not up to snuff.

There are guys that are good enough to blow through an interview and fool the interviewers, but you still wouldn't want to hire him.  We had such a guy get hired in our division, but he took credit for work that wasn't his.  He wasn't incompetent, but you couldn't trust him any further than you could lift him with one pinky.  

That's not something that'll be revealed in any interview process, but would be evident from an impartial assessment by his supervising manager.

TTFN

FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

RE: not up to snuff.

RE, if the chartered system in Oz is the same or similar to the UK you don't have to get involved vetting the academic qualifications as the relevant institute should have done that.

It will be whether the experience years count or not which you may well be able to attest to. Have a look at the UK-SPEC http://www.engc.org.uk/ecukdocuments/internet/document%20library/UK-SPEC.pdf which gives the detail of what is expected and compare that to your knowledge of his activities. If the two don't match up then don't sign his stuff off.

The IMechE has a scoring system to assess candidates against each of the criteria:
Scoring guidance for those attaining CEng:


Level 1 = Performs the activity with significant supervision and guidance; performs basic routine and predictable tasks; little or no individual responsibility. (This level of competence would not normally be sufficient for election to Membership)


Level 2 = Performs the activity in a range of contexts; supervision only required in more complex circumstances; some individual responsibility or autonomy. (This indicates a minimum level of competence for election to Membership, which should be supplemented, by higher levels of competence in the areas most relevant to the field of engineering in which the applicant is employed).


Level 3 = Performs the activity in some complex and non-routine contexts; significant responsibility and autonomy; can oversee the work of others. (This indicates a normal level of competence for election to Membership).


Level 4 = Performs the activity in a wide range of complex and non-routine contexts; substantial personal autonomy; can develop others in the activity. (This indicates a high level of competence and suitability for election to Membership and possibly Fellowship)

Hopefully the Aussie institutions should have similar guidance to help you with your quandry!

Regards, HM

No more things should be presumed to exist than are absolutely necessary - William of Occam

RE: not up to snuff.

When I applied to take the PE exam in Texas, there were a couple of parts to the application.  One was what they called the "experience record".  For that, I had to list the various positions I'd held, and what engineering functions I'd performed within those positions.  My supervisors had to sign off on that.  As far as I'm concerned, their signature means that yes, I accomplished those tasks while under their employ.  It doesn't mean I did them well, it just means I did them successfully enough to count as "doing".

A separate part of the application was letters of reference.

It sounds like the OP is talking about the first kind of thing (documentation of experience) and not the second (how good someone is at their job).  Yes?

Hg

Eng-Tips policies:  FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

RE: not up to snuff.

Texas was the last state to require Engineers to take test to get a license. It use to be you just needed three other PEs to be a reference for you.  It had the only application I have ever seen that required a picture. The common rumor was they needed the picture to be sure you were white.

I could see parallels in the original post in this thread to things that were happening in the US. For instance:

"got his BE as he got it in dubious circumstances"= He got it at Tuskegee
"The gentleman after 6 years now has a drafting with some engineering job description (design daftsmen)." = At least they gave him a job doing something besides sweeping the floor.

"then applied to a many local firms looking for work as an engineer,"  - That mighty upity of him.

 

RE: not up to snuff.

Before they had the exam in TX, they needed not only the references but also the experience record.  Which is why in TX you submit about 12 pages of experience documentation whereas in MI it's only about a page (says a friend licensed in MI).

They still ask for the photo, but now they want it along with the imprint of your newly acquired seal, not as part of the application.

I think attributing racism to the OP's boss is rather a stretch.

The question has to do with what one is attesting to when one signs off on the candidate's experience reports.  And the answer is probably printed on that form somewhere.

Hg

Eng-Tips policies:  FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources