Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
(OP)
Several posts, primarily within the Professional Ethics Forum, deal with either trying to define who an Engineer is, or liscensing. Is the only "true Engineer" a liscensed one? Given the relative diversity of potential engineering occupations (if not titles), should liscensing bodies (worldwide) expand, or re-define the scope of liscensure? In the US it seems (from my exposure) that the majority of Engineers do their jobs under the "Industrial Exemption" rule rather than persue liscensure. Some may not know how their work "fits" in with the current liscensing categories or simply find it more convienient. Should international "reciprocity" rules be established for liscensed individuals?
Regards,
PSE
Regards,
PSE





RE: Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
E-commerce and globalization of the world's economy have increased opportunities for engineers to work on international projects. Although technology easily overcomes geographical borders, legal barriers exist. Barriers include legitimate concerns of language, ethics, local engineering codes and standards, and the establishment of a multinational set of minimum requirements for engineering practice privileges. Some barriers, however, are based more on turf protection than concerns for the public welfare.
USCIEP's counterparts in other countries are developing agreements and alliances to remove unnecessary barriers.
Two international organizations — the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Engineer Coordinating Committee and the Engineers Mobility Forum (EMF) — seek to improve mobility by establishing two decentralized international registries. The APEC and EMF registries will list engineers from the APEC and EMF member countries who meet minimum qualifications for licensure. The minimum standards include engineering education requirements, professional experience, compliance with home jurisdiction requirements, having a verified record of responsible charge, and demonstrating a commitment to continuing education.
The ultimate goal of the registry is to streamline the process for experienced professional engineers who want to obtain practice privileges in countries that are members of the APEC Engineer project and EMF. The registries are "decentralized," meaning each country operates its own section of the registry and writes its own "assessment statement," a document that describes the admission requirements for the registry in that country. In each country, a Monitoring Committee is formed to develop an assessment statement, review applications for admission to the registry and function as the point of contact for all matters relating to the registry.
The registry will list those engineers from a participating country who apply for recognition and who meet the qualification standards prescribed by the assessment statement for the engineer's country of residence. Engineers who are accepted onto the register of their own countries are not automatically eligible for practice privileges in any other APEC or EMF country. They must also meet the local jurisdictional requirements of each country.
One anticipated advantage of being listed in the registry is that membership will be a recognized credential and that each engineer's complete record will be in the home database. The record can then be sent to another participating country when an engineer applies for practice privileges there.
After reviewing the minimum criteria for the international registry, the USCIEP has determined that participation in the APEC and EMF registries is a unique opportunity that serves the best interests of the professional engineers and the licensing authorities in the United States. The registry being supported by USCIEP does not relax any requirements for licensure within the U.S. It does not override the jurisdiction of state licensing boards. It does allow for the U.S. to be represented throughout the world with organizations that address inter-country mobility of professional engineers. And it does enhance the opportunity for licensed U.S. engineers to practice outside the U.S. borders.
In 2001, the APEC Engineer Coordinating Committee and the EMF Coordinating Committee authorized the USCIEP to establish a section of the registry in the United States. The USCIEP International Registry of Professional Engineers is the official APEC and EMF registry for the United States and began operation in January 2002.
There are other Mutual Recognition Agreements, for example Licensed Members of ASCE (Civil Engineers) can registered in Australia.
And there is the European Engineer (Eur Ing) registration in the European Union.
RE: Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
The crux of the issue, for me at least, is that I look upon engineering as a profession, and as such, expect that professionals practicing in this profession should demonstrate a commitment to the profession in a manner analogous to those that practice medicine, law, accounting, etc.
For the last half-century or so in the U.S., the tangible way to demonstrate this commitment is through licensure as a P.E. Ergo, P.E. Exam = Medical Boards = Bar Exam = CPA Exam.
The whole situation sometimes reminds me of the adage "if it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, it must be a duck" -- practicing engineering is only one half of the equation (maybe the "walking" portion?).
Licensure, along with practice, is what it takes to embody the "engineering professional" in my book.
RE: Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
Cheers
Greg Locock
RE: Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
Personally, I think each of us should be licensed and elliminate the degredation of the title. Ultimately, this would result is a smaller workforce, greater recognition and higher pay scales. The licensure process is not that difficult. If you were a half decent student, then you will do fine. This seems to me to be the point of the process: elliminate those individuals whom we all know that 'skated by' in school.
RE: Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
http://www.nspe.org/etweb/1!-00modlic.asp
It appears that the NSPE is attempting to overhaul some of it's licensing procedures in an attempt to accomodate greater diversity within the engineering discipline. The article lists several additional disciplines for potential licensure but does it go far enough? Should some or all of the following possibilites be considered as legitimate or where might they fit in?
Nuclear Engineering
Biomedical or Genetic Engineering
Quality Engineering
Optical Engineering
Semiconductor/MEMS/Nanotechnology Engineering
Software Engineering
Do you agree or disagree with the proposed changes to the path to licensure? Should an individual "certified" by another organization (ASQC, SME etc) be given different consideration?
My spin
Consider giving greater breadth to the number of licensed disciplines than those outlined in the article.
Consider allowing individuals with sufficient relative experience (a rather nebulous term that would need definition by the licensing board), to apply directly for a PE license. This would follow along the lines of what they propose for MS and PHD level individuals. If a BS + FE exam + 4 years experience + PE exam = a professional engineer (minimum requirements), Could not a BS + >10 years be equivalent?
Regards,
PSE
RE: Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
Yes, I realize Quality Engineering relies on a ton of statistics theory that EE, ME, etc. don't, but I've found myself having to learn that on my own in order to effectively practice in my area of expertise. Thus, I see QE's core as a subset of the existing licensed areas, and their cores missing from QE.
Yes, I also know that Software Engineering can require mastery of Calculus, depending on if one is developing from scratch. In general, though, I've observed that the discipline includes little, if any, advanced math education for the majority of people that practice it, based on my experience.
WRT licensure based on experience, I'm all for it, provided the candidate either passes the same written exams OR sits for an oral exam with their state's examining board AND that board does more than just share war stories with the candidate (i.e.--asks some substantive questions that will demonstrate the candidate's ability to think on their feet and demonstrate mastery of the fundamentals).
I'll go along with substitution of experience for education as a prequalifier (most certifying bodies for other disciplines that I'm familiar with allow it, some in the converse direction, too), but feel strongly about the need to demonstrate the ability to pass exams.
Doubtful that oral exams would/could reemerge, but it's a thought, and one that makes things a little easier for the experienced but not formally educated practicing "engineer".
RE: Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
RE: Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
Cheers
Greg Locock
RE: Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
I, too, have rarely ever solved Calculus problems as part of my job, and those I did never required me to go beyond 1st or 2nd order diff eq's or integrals.
What I have done, though, is used its basic tenets to interpret, better understand, and explain the root principles behind various models and techniques built into canned programs and lookup tables that I use on the job.
I have also brought added value and innovation to my employers by being able to understand mathematical expressions as published in the "IEEE Transactions On..." well enough to adapt bits and pieces of this progressive thought into their operational and business practices as a way to add efficiency and new revenue.
I'm admittedly unfamiliar with ASME and ASCE journals, etc., so perhaps things are different in those disciplines. I'm also unfamiliar with the ME, CE, etc. PE exam curricula, and while Calculus has a presence in the EE curriculum, it might not be as prevalent in those areas.
RE: Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
I agree that academic credentials alone should not be sufficient for becoming a PE. It can be amazing at how quickly theory can break down within the real world (We can't ignore the contributions of certain constraints). I do not think that the internship period should be shortened based upon academic credential. About the Final PE exam, should there be expanded types based upon the diversity of engineering practice? Mainepepmp's thought of an oral exam or perhaps a practical interview is also intriguing. It may be difficult to match the practical experience of a review board with the practicing discipline of the candidate unless a larger pool of reviewers is available.
Regards
RE: Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
I'm unsure of the drivers behind it being done away with. It could have been something that NSPE pushed for, or something the state boards decided to do because they were hard-pressed to find available competent examiners. I knew at one time, but I didn't write it down, and now I forget!
Would any forum members that were either involved with or are familiar with the NSPE (I think) and state PE boards' discontinuance of the oral exam format in the late 1980's please provide insight into the drivers behind the decision?
RE: Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
Also note that in Canada, teaching engineering is condidered practicing. I believe that professional status here can be obtained through a combination of education and teaching. (Don't quote me on that one though.)
On the subject of advanced math, I don't do too much calculus anymore. I don't think that it is required that all engineers be capable of doing highly complex math. What I do use every day are the disciplined thought processes that solving complex math problems requires. And I am capable of picking up a technical report, and have a good understanding of the techniques being used. And if I really have to, I can grind my way through a complex problem. It takes me three times as long as it takes our co-op students to do it, but I can do it.
RE: Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
Cheers
Greg Locock
RE: Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
While I believe lab work certainly has its merits in helping someone apply theory, I believe that experience in working outside a "controlled" environment may be worth far more. To use a definition from one of my professors (I do not recall the exact wording or emphasis so I won't quote him)
If you can concieve of something new you are an Inventor.
If you understand the theory behind it you are a Scientist.
If you can create a product from it you are a Designer.
If you can do all of the above AND build the thing, THEN you are an Engineer.
Regards
RE: Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
Seems a lot of people want to jump on the band wagon, presumably because they want to share the credibility earned over the decades by professional engineers. A lot of these people aren't even bone fide technologist so they may even have difficulty being recognised as CET's let alone P.Eng.'s.
Why don't all these unlisenced engineers who are engaged in engineering related technologies establish an associated and get recognized as engineering technologists, etc? It would create less public confusion, attract public goodwill to their own group and probably facilitate better compensation than PEng.'s typically get now.
RE: Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
There are a large number of design documents up here that require the stamp of a professional engineer. An interesting developement is that recently, Alberta's engineering association introduced the "Registered Professional Technologist (Engineering)" or RPT(Eng) designation. This designation can be attained by fulfilling several requirements. First, the applicant must be a Registered Engineering Technologist (RET). Second, they must be nominated by the technologists association. Third, the RPT(Eng) can only apply for "limited scope of practice". Within this defined scope of practice, the technologist can do anything an engineer can. I don't know if this practice has been adopted right accross Canada or not.
There are several classes of engineering technologists and technicians in Alberta, and I believe that they can get stamps to put on drawings and documents, but my understanding is that without the RPT(Eng) designation, a professional engineer still needs to take responsibility for the final document. It is probably because of this that many engineering technologists (especially the ones who have been practicing for quite a few years) do not even bother to apply for status as an RET or a CET (Certified Engineering Technologist). What good is it to put a technologists stamp on a document if an engineer still needs to put a stamp on it? Perhaps now that RET's with appropriate experience and knowledge can get the "professional" designation required to take responsibility for their work, more technologists will pursue getting there RET designation.
On a sad note, I personally know of a few engineers who got their professional status just so they could take advantage of our associations (excellent) group insurance policy. A few years back, a "continuing competency" program was implemented so that an engineer needs to contially be working to advance their knowledge. No more can we meet the minimum requirements, attain professional status, and rest on our laurels for the rest of our career.
Sorry for the ramble there. Just thought some of you might be interested in how things work up here...
RE: Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
Regarding the comment about do I trust the non-licensed engineer’s to design the car I drive.
In a word NO. I don’t trust the designers of the aircraft I fly in if they are not licensed either.
When you stamp a drawing, you are stating “I am qualified and I am taking personal professional responsibility for this design!”
If you hide behind the industrial exemption you are not taking professional responsibility.
Regarding the RET’s in Alberta. If they are good enough to do some design on heir own then let them get the professional registration the same as I did.
What we have is some individuals, no doubt talented and intelligent enough to get a P.Eng, but who for what ever reason decided to take the short route through a community collage and now want the benefits of being a professional without the education and experience.
Would you let a nurse operate on you? While some might be as knowledgeable and capable as some doctors I would prefer that a real doctor perform the operation. Same as when I go into a building, into a car or fly in an airplane I hope a real engineer designed it ,one who is not afraid to take responsibility for his (or her) design.
Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng
Construction Project Management
From conception to completion
www.kitsonengineering.com
RE: Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
It is obvious I can not obtain my PE license, regardless of my experience, since I have never worked for a registered engineer.
Since I have "hidden" behind the industrial exemption for 16 years, should I keep my title..."Director of Engineering"? or should I change it.
Director of Design?
Should my company be allowed to even have an engineering department since we employ no PEs?
RE: Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
This may or may not be true, you need to check with your board. In any case you may be able to take the exam and register in a different jurisdiction then after receiving your PE apply though comity in your jurisdiction. I hate to say this but it is how you play the game.
Since I have "hidden" behind the industrial exemption for 16 years, should I keep my title..."Director of Engineering"? or should I change it.
Should my company be allowed to even have an engineering department since we employ no PEs?
Once again it is upto your juridiction. In some states you can use the title both internally and externally from your company, in other staes only internally. Some state states will not even let you have this on your business cards.
RE: Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
I think you are using a poor example when you comment on aircraft design. The FAA governs the business, and they do a much more stringent job than any state board. In addition, any design that is issued from a manufacturer that will be used on any US registered aircraft must be signed off my an individual with MRB authority. To gain MRB authority takes much more work than getting a PE license. I would also argue that aircraft design is much more detailed and pure engineering design than any civil design I have worked. A thumb to the wind is not close enough in that business.
On a totally different topic: What is the deal with people putting MBA after their names as of late? I understand PHD, and possibly PE. But hell, let's be honest, everybody and their brother has got an MBA. And in general, they got it because it was easy, and they thought it would give them a leg up. Maybe it is a gripe of mine, but I find it arrogant and silly. You give me a choice between two engineers, one with a masters in engineering and one with an MBA, I will take the one with the masters in engineering. Likewise, two engineers with an MBA, I will take the one who does not have MBA next to his name.
RE: Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
It appears from the postings that Canada may have a more clear cut process for liscensing the engineering profession. Here in the US it appears considerably more ambiguous (hence my start to this thread). Requirements vary by state and there may (or may not) be reciprocity agreements between various states. The "Industrial Exemption" places product liability on the manufacturer of a product rather than on the individual who stamps or approves a drawing. According to the NSPE website, upwards of 75% of engineers practicing in the US do so under this exemption. Would it be even practical to try and redress this imbalance? I do not know of any companies that actively encourage their engineering staff to persue liscensure. Anybody know of a few (likely public works companies)? They may be out there perhaps in a different industrial segment than where my career has taken me.
There also appear to be areas of engineering that may not be sufficiently addressed by the current liscensing process (my Aug 20 posting). Hopefully the NSPE and the ABET (Accredidation Board of Engineering Technology) organizations here in the US will review and determine if changes are needed (my opinion is that changes are warranted). Stressriser's post is not off base. There may be some students or experienced individuals who end up surprised to find out that they cannot apply for or receive a PE because the engineering degree that they received was not from an ABET certified curriculum (required by some states).
Regards
RE: Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
I used the aircraft example as one example of the industrial exemption. I do a lot of work in support of the aeronautical industry and am aware of the stringent safety standards in that industry. My point was that signing off as a professional engineer does put the individual on the line. The US industrial exemption does not do this for any manufactured product. In Canada the designs would have to be signed off by a professional engineer.
If a state board is lax in granting the registrations and there is a US federal qualification that is stricter, that is a topic for a different thread. Why not make the requirement for professional registration as an aeronautical engineer dependant on the federal qualification?
As to your comment regarding the use of the MBA. That also is a topic for a different thread, however I use the MBA as it is a degree that I worked hard to obtain, it is relevant to the work I do and not everyone has one (although it is much more common now than in 1983 when I got mine.) I did not take it because it was easier or to get a leg up. I took the degree because it was relevant to the career direction I wanted to take. If I had wanted to be a technical design type then I would have taken a MSc.
The purpose of any education is to train your mind. A MSc will further your technical training and an MBA will open your mind to the areas where a manager must operate.
I too, would hire a MSc over an MBA for a technical engineering position. If the work was not overly technical but more managerial then the MBA would be the preferred candidate.
Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng
Construction Project Management
From conception to completion
www.kitsonengineering.com
RE: Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
The MRB signoff for aerospace products in the US does put the individual on the line with the company. In fact, a PE and an individual with MRB authority are seen no differently within torte law.
The topic of conversation is revamping the PE process. Would one not want to know that different options exist in gaining licensure that may be better (or worse; i.e. a debate), in order to determine what may be the best way to revamp the licensure process? If that is not the case, we should re-title the thread, "Let's complain about the PE process." I figureed with your MBA, you could connect the dots. I will be more explicit next time to help out.
Arrogance and title shopping is a different thread, I agree. I do find your comments interesting. I especially like your idea that your education was gained to train your mind. I agree whole heartedly. I assume you mean that you did it for your own self improvement, which is an admirable pursuit. But, if it was just to train yourself, why advertise it?
This is the last comment I have on the topic, and I will try to get back to the PE process. An individual with a Phd carries the title after his/her name because they are a professor. It is not our present day twisted idea of a job title. The historical expectation was that these individuals were teachers, and therefore "professed," or lived, their trade so that others may benefit from their knowledge. The Phd after their name was to signify respect for their role within society (maybe not necessarily the individual). It is my humble opinion that an MBA may have been hard earned for what ever reason, but is not something to be revered. Therefore, to use it in self promotion is arrogant and destructive.
RE: Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
RE: Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
I have worked within the manufacturing, aerospace and civil/structural industries. I think the PE boards could learn a great deal from the aerospace industries. When I did aero structural work, each design went through thorough review, with a least four engineers signatures. In my manufacturing work, the review ended at the conceptual stage. In my civil work, I could stamp my own designs without review.
Just because I passed a couple of eight hour exams, does not mean that I will not make mistakes from time-to-time. I do not wish to create a bureaucratic mess (i.e. arguably aircraft industry), but a happy median must exist that ensures higher quality and safety.
RE: Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
As a licensed professional engineer, I believe it is one's own ability that determines what one should venture into. One needs to sleep at night, licensed or not.
On the other hand it is up to the licensing boards to ensure the minimum qualifications protect the public. So the reality is if licensing is a requirement then get licenced!
Perhaps the Firestone fiasco may not have happened if someone put his/her neck on the line.
WRT the issue of using the term "engineer". Licensing makes you a "professional engineer". That to me, ends any debate.
RE: Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
I think you will find that the Firestone thing had much more to do with lawyers than it did with engineers.
Cheers
Greg Locock
RE: Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
Greg, a PE is not practically meaningless elsewhere in the world, of course.
Stressriser, in some states, as in mine, you need five people to verify your work history, three of which have to be PE's. The requirements say nothing of working under, or for a PE.
As I have stated in other threads, I think all engineers should endeavor to be licensed in their chosen field of engineering, or die trying.
I think Canada's approach is better for all of us.
RE: Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
In Australia a PE is meaningless
In Japan a PE is meaningless
In Europe a PE is meaningless
Since we don't know what a PE exam involves we can't possibly consider it as a qualification when interviewing (not that I ever pay much attention to quals when I'm interviewing anyway).
Cheers
Greg Locock
RE: Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
RE: Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
I was going to drop it but that second star compelled me to do a 5 minute internet search to find the following websites that discuss being licensed, registered, or chartered in:
Australia-
http://wwweng.murdoch.edu.au/courses/Engp26.htm
Japan-
http://www.dfat.gov.au/apec/prof_services/japan_eng.html
Europe-
http://www.engc.org.uk/
I would ride in a car you designed part of. But I would bet that same car that at many points between when that car was encased in a side of a mountain as iron ore to when it is driven off of an assembly line that there are many PE stamps on prints.
Just consider the process of getting the petrol or fuel to power the car. Don't you think the insurance companies of off shore drilling platforms would like the designed components of such a rig certified by a PE.
It's a big world. It has many viewpoints.
RE: Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
PE is NOT meaningless outside of US. To name a few, Canada and Australia both have some forms of reciprocal agreements with US Engineering Broads.
From your posts, I think you may be an engineer from the UK. Personal experience has also confirmed that US PEs have no problems in obtaining Chartered Engineer licensure with the UK Engineering Council. Although the process is not automatic, but it is relatively simple.
You lack of understanding in the US licensure process is not surprising. You are probably familiar with the licensing process in England where the critical and final part of the licensing process consists of an interview by a panel. The panel is often made up of senior engineers working in the industry or teaching academia. Since there are no standard sets of questions asked in the interview, the passing or failing of a candidate is purely based on his luck and the mood of the interviewing panel. After speaking to recent Chartered Engineers, many of them told me the interview consisted of mainly managerial questions. Technical questions are often not asked as many of the interviewers are managers themselves who have gave up designing for management tasks in the company. Oh, one exception is the UK Institution of Structural Engineers (IStrucE) where they licensed Chartered Engineer by written examinations. I think they recognized that unqualified structural engineers designing buildings and structures in UK can be detrimental to the public. I wonder why other Engineering Institutions in the UK (IEE, IMechE, CIBSE) do not follow the IStrucE licensing practice. Perhaps, they think the IStrucE licensing process is unnecessary and does not ensure the quality of its licensed engineers.
The US licensing on the other hand is based on stringent written testing procedures. All tests of all disciplines (not just structural) are administered to the candidates are the same across the country. Accepting the US system is not foolproof, but it does a relatively good job of setting minimum competency for the purpose of licensing engineers.
Interesting, many engineers in the US do not agree with the system and some organizations, NSPE is one of them, even proposing to have the current procedures changed to allow more engineers to be licensed. Anyway, I drop my membership because I strongly oppose to NSPE's action.
I believe the process of engineering licensure in the US is at least as good as the one in UK and most other countries if not better. Please do not make statements that you have no idea of what you are talking about.
RE: Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
"Please do not make statements that you have no idea of what you are talking about. " That was exactly my point. In practice, in my field (automotive, obviously), PE is meaningless, in Australia. The Institute may have arranged reciprocity, well, good for them. The Institute is meaningless as well. Once, in 20 years, have I been asked whether I was a member of the Institute. That was not in the automotive industry, and I was asked for interest's sake, the answer would not have affected whether I would have got the job. Similarly, I do not ask interviewees whether they are members.
I realise you are proud of having achieved PE status, and that it is a necessary part of your professional standing. I wish, in fact, that we had the Canadian system over here, and that the term engineer had a specific legal meaning, so that all Engineers in every industry had to have passed the PE or an equivalent process, or gained CEng status. However, that hasn't happened yet and I see no particular sign that it will.
Cheers
Greg Locock
RE: Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
That sure is not the way it is in Canada. More than 50% of engineers in Ontario are not registered with the local regulating organization peo.
HAZOP at www.curryhydrocarbons.ca
RE: Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
Cheers
Greg Locock
RE: Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
I think licensure is a great thing, something I'm sorry I don't have. Why don't I? I've not been fortunate enough to have been hired by companies where I had the opportunity to work with PE's and therefore obtain the requisite recommendations. It matters not a bit what my skill level is or whether I could pass the PE test or whether I have sound judgement...lacking those recommendations I cannot be licensed.
Hence, I for one, would hate to see a move toward licensing being universally required.
RE: Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
While 50% of graduates of an engineering school may not be P.Eng’s, they are NOT engineers unless they are registered with their local association.
Having an engineering degree does not make you an engineer in Canada. Practicing engineering does not make you an engineer in Canada. The ONLY way to be an engineer in Canada is to be a member of one of the professional associations. That is the wording of the various engineering acts. You may disagree with this statement, you may disagree as to whether or not this should be the law, but this is the position that the Manitoba association has taken on more than one occasion. I personally fully support this position.
If you or someone you know is practicing engineering and is not a member of the association then this is in contravention of the law.
You are required both as a matter of law and of professional ethics (which as a member of the association you are required by law to follow) to report this to the proper authorities, in your case the PEO.
phillyboy
The reciprocity agreements between Canada and the US are practically meaningless. The associations in both Canada and the US do not respect the terms of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NFTA). This requires that there be mobility of professional manpower and reciprocity in professional licensing. As far as I know, only Texas will accept my Canadian license and then the Texas license is not transferable to other states.
In Canada getting a personal license in another province is simply a matter of applying. Acceptance is automatic after the receiving association verifies registration in the home province. (I have had registration in three different provinces, currently registered in two.) When I applied in Alberta, my acceptance letter was faxed to me within two weeks of mailing my application.
Does anyone have any experience in transferring licenses internationally?
Is there any state that will accept me without a long drawn out application process? (24 years as a P.Eng and graduate of an accredited university) Will this license then be transferable to any of the other 49 states?
gittings00
If licensure was universally required then you would have worked in proximity to other professional engineers and therefore had the necessary references.
In Canada, licensure is a provincial matter, the federal government is not bound by the laws of the province. Therefore federal civil service engineers are not required to be licensed, however virtually 100% of the ones that I worked with were. (myself included for the first 15 years). There is also a specific exemption (at least in Manitoba) for military engineers while on active duty with the Canadian Armed Forces. There registration is also almost 100% of qualified personnel. (12 of my 15 years of government service was as a civilian employee of DND)
Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng
Construction Project Management
From conception to completion
www.kitsonengineering.com
RE: Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
I am not sure if any other Engineering States Boards will give full reciprocation except Texas. However, I am sure that several States specially those that share the boarders will exempt PEng from having to take the EIT. The EIT is a bitch exam if you have been out of school for a long time. The PE exam will still be mandatory.
Most the States will also accept your Canadian experiences, references, and degrees earned in Canada. You need to check with NCEES for any detailed information on each particular State requirements for PEng. They are the main body in the US who creates and administered the examinations. They also conduct a periodic survey to ask each State Board on their licensure requirements. I can't find the recent one on their webpage www.ncees.org but I can email you the 2000 survey.
Almost all international reciprocations are not automatic. The acceptance is usually on a case by case basis. I was lucky enough to apply successfully with the UK Engineering Council as a Chartered Engineer when my company sent me to Asia on an overseas assignment. Licensure is a big deal in Asia so I had no choice but to apply. The whole concept of Licensure is very much different in Asia and maybe Europe as well because legal liabilities do not fall on the individual engineer. Therefore, licensure in Asia and Europe is more to do with one's status. I hope I don't generate a heated debate by saying so but that is my opinion.
So you success in reciprocating with a UK Professional Institution depends on which one you are applying to. They all have different entry requirements. Some will accept your experiences, degrees and references while another will not. In your case, you would have apply as corporate member of the "Institution of Civil Engineers" or "Institution of Structural Engineers". Upon successful admissions, they will registered you with the UK Engineering Council. You can find each of the relevant institutions at www.engc.org.uk
Hope this help.
RE: Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
I agree with your observations of engineers overseas. I have many friends from India and the engineer there is educated similar to engineers in the states however; they are held in a higher status than doctors.
It would be nice if we could get out act together here in the states. I think if we did, compensation would also follow. I love engineering, but when people ask if they should go into the field, my answer is usually no, not if they are interested in a respected high wage field.
we have a long way to go, and I think we should look to get the industrial exempt engineers on board with licensure. By doing this we become a greater force under our own control, demanding a wage that is comsensurate with our role in life. Licensure will eliminate the non-engineer from the field which in my experience is a major factor in lower wages since they perform illegal engineering and are many times hidden by the industrial exemption.
Just my thoughts...
BobPE
RE: Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
Getting this turned around is going to have to be the role of the individual Engineering organizations. The role of each individual professional Engineer is going to be to push their organization to set this as a priority.
There is currently an incredible amount of engineering being done by exempt engineers that directly affects public safety which truly defeats the whole principle behind licensing of engineers! From an automotive manufacturing perspective, I think there are many more "Firestones" out there waiting to happen for just this reason. It is up to us to get this change in motion.
RE: Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
So far as requiring universal registration I don't really disagree with your basic position, but can't help wondering if industrial exemption has some virtues in its own right. Let's postulate a car industry in which every experiment and analysis that is safety related is repeated by an independent team. In other words, the cost of development would increase by 50%. This would undoubtedly lead to a slightly safer vehicle. My guess is that it is more efficient (in societal terms) to have complex products with a slightly less rigorous standard of safety, at say 90% of the cost, than eliminating occasional mistakes that are not caught by other means. We aren't stupid, everything does get checked one way or another, but we do not go so far as to double test everything.
Perhaps the PEs who operate in industry exempt industries should start to press for change? I can't see that non-PEs like me are going to ask for it. In particular in the example I've given, how would a PE sign off a vehicle for crash? In what way would it differ from the current process? (if it didn't differ then I'm afraid I can see no value in it).
I have worked in three industries. In none of them was membership of a professional institution required, and the presence or absence of PE equivalent has made no difference to which jobs I get. Perhaps it will, in years to come, but frankly I can't see it happening.
Cheers
Greg Locock
RE: Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
The process is complex, the design of a car can impacts hundreds or perhaps thousands of people, take for instance a water treatment plant I do engineering for. It treats over 600 million gallons per day of water and can impact 10's of millions of people. Engineers reduce risk, we are not the end all of risk. Professional status would greatly impact the private sector process, I would much rather own a car signed off by PE's than what I have now. Look at the american space shuttle, the first disaster was caused by O-rings, failure cought by "industry exempt" engineers, but not relayed properly through the top industry exempt management becuase other "industry expempt" engineers felt no personal need to reduce risk. The result was obvious. The second shuttle disaster was supposedly insulation failure cought by "industry exempt" engineers and again failure in communication within the top industry exempt engineering management caused tradegdy. I personally think PE's in this process would have prevented these tragedys, 100 percent.
I think if all indusrt exempt engineers were to get registered, the effect would be radical. We would control the process of public safety, now controlled in large part by accountants in industry. Liability would be no different than it is now. Both myself personally, and my company can get sued for my designs. My company keeps 10 million in liability insurance on the engineers. I could potentially lose everything I have if I am wrong. This is a big risk, and is not worth what I am paid to do the work. I am paid so little because there are other non-engineers and industry exempt engineers out there lowering the pay scale. It is not the exempt engineers fault but rather the industry machine that they are tools for that keep them down. If all engineers were PE's I think we could get just compensation, drastically impact public health and safety in a positive way, and retake control of the professional boards as tools for us ratehr than the political hacks they are now.
In my mind, its a win win no matter how you lok at it. I can understand your point though, people like me challange the industry exempt engineer and they feel threatned because they feel we are attacking their skills. Nothing can be further from the truth. We recognize your skills and your contribution to society, but being on the outside looking in, we can see that you are treated poorly compared to your registered counterparts outside industry. I am an advocate to get professional societies to make a plan to allow industry exempt engineers to make the step up to registration. Beleieve me, they don't want you, partly because they are political hacks, affected by industry influence not to require you to be registered. I don't think that they are acting on your best interests, just coprorate greed because they look at registration as a union.
I really think industry misses the point. And it is up to us to fix the problem without industries help.
BopPE
RE: Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
I would not want to debate the complexity of the automotive design process or the fact that one person can or cannot effectively manage it. Neither would I debate the cost effectiveness of extensive testing on each design and product to achieve marginal increases in safety. I would debate your assertion that universal registration would result in increased development cost.
Your conclusion states that registration would mean more testing and development cost, which I have to disagree with. Being registered does not mean that you have to be able to foresee every eventuality, but rather be able to apply a "reasonable and prudent standard of care" as judged by a panel of their peers (wording may vary depending on jurisdiction). That leads to my answer to why it would be different from the current process.
Essentially the goal would be to not have a significant change from the current process or else you would end up increasing the cost of the product development as you talked about (or as exists in the aerospace industry). To see the real advantage you have to look back at the basics of why the practice of Engineering was regulated in the first place.
If we are to place our trust in the organizations of the world to apply due diligence in designing and marketing products then we are essentially stating that organizations are sufficiently deterred from designing and marketing a sub-standard product by the ramifications of bringing such a product to market. That idea may work well in theory, but unfortunately history has proven this to fall apart in practice. Let me keep with the automotive design example to illustrate this point.
Say during the design cycle an engineer finds himself or herself in a situation where the safety of the public is being marginalized due to slight advantages in cost. Not wanting to get into technical details but keep the example general, the end debate comes to a management decision and a non-engineer who feels that the decision is not worth the cost overrules the judgment of the engineer. At that juncture, what options does this engineer have if they feel strongly that this is the wrong decision? You can get into several hypothetical situations involving going to the press and such, but essentially they have little support unless they are PE fulfilling a position that is required to be filled by a PE. In that case they can comfortably make a stand for their position knowing that they have the law and a strong professional association to uphold their position, and support them in the case that they suffer professionally for holding their position. In the case of a non-licensed, industrially exempt engineer, they are without that support. It could be argued that one could fulfill one's entire career and never see that situation arise, but if it did, I for one would be grateful to have that support.
It is my feeling that this concept of industrially exempt engineers is one of the root causes of much of the erosion of the pillars of the engineering profession in recent years. It will only serve to augment us all if we can form a strong collective voice to further engineering.
BobPE - I cannot agree more. You wouldn't happen to practice in Ontario would you?
RE: Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
Find where I wrote that and I'll send you a dollar.
Cheers
Greg Locock
RE: Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
Thread731-62888 couple of things come to mind after reading through some of the postings.
For the purpose of attaining the PE, (and if you had to choose) what is considered to be of higher value, the written exams or the references and work experience?
I pose this because it seems like a lot of non-PE's really don't care to go take a series of examinations that the perceive to be of little or no value especially if they have been working for a long time. There was also a posting comparing engineers with doctors and lawyers. It struck me that both of these disciplines use different paths to licensure. A doctor udergoes an internship for each speciality that they intend to practice in. A lawyer takes the bar exam in order to practice. I haven't checked but there may be reciprocity laws for practicing in other states or a lawyer may have to retake an exam for each state. Which "method" might prove better in respect to engineering?
This is getting a bit long-winded. I was disconcerted with a posting that indicated that the PE designation is independent of discipline. While the code of ethics "prevents" practice outside of ones discipline, there does not seem to be any requirement to let the public know what discipline the PE is able to practice in. Perhaps some respondents will shed more light on this.
Regards
RE: Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
I have a number of relatives who are RPEs, but they are not familiar with my work since we never worked together & I do not feel it is right to ask them for a recommendation based soley on shared ancestors.
Please see my new thread about PE with test(s) waived. BTW, with a waiver, 9 PE references are required versus the normal 5 PE references.
RE: Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
You have noted what I have also found to be a problem. In my career, I have yet to cross paths (outside of these forums) with PE's. They don't seem to be recognizeable within the profession as a whole even with the weight of state law on their side. I received my degree in '86 and I only found out about PE's after finding this site!
One of the conundrums appears that (Exams aside), in order to obtain a PE, you have to find PE's for references (varies by state). However, if there are few PE's working within the industries of your state, your chances of garnering the requisite references are slim to none.
A "challenge" for PE's
1) Make yourselves known to your colleagues working in industry
2) Get active in the schools. Try to get the EIT exam at least mentioned within the curriculums. You might be shocked
As can be seen in other threads, the PE does not seem to be an easy sell to engineers working under the US industrial exemption as it is not perceived to provide much if any benefit. My impressions so far is that it is difficult to obtain, is an ongoing expense (though minimal), is not considered necessary for the majority of positions (after all they are provided by industry), is less portable and recognizeable (you can take a degree anywhere).
Regards
RE: Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
While there are quite a few Gung Ho PE's in the forum, you guys are dramatically under-represented in the real world and if you want everyone to become licensed, why don't you get the NSPE to pressure the states to: 1. nationalize the process as much as is possible and 2. Drop the PE reference requirement. I have heard several of you say to get references from PE's who haven't seen your work...which really makes the requirement meaningless anyway. Very few of the non-pe's are complaining about the test being too hard or the experience, it is always about trying to find a PE to sign off your paper like a child on a scavenger hunt!
BobPE - regarding your statement: "I personally think PE's in this process would have prevented these tragedys, 100 percent."
I understand that you are backing your position and I agree that a PE could have had more power in the same situation, but claiming anything to be 100% is dangerous and foolish.
The insulation problem on Columbia occurred at takeoff. By the time that the "industry exempt" engineers found the problem, there was nothing they could do. The shuttle didn't have enough supplies to stay in space and there is not way to do a rescue missions without jeapordizing another crew. What would a PE have done to help? even if a PE cought the insulation problem before takeoff and tried to stop the launch, would NASA have done it? How do you prove that insulation falling off is more dangerous than hitting a bird in flight, a falling meteor or a piece of space debris traveling at 10,000 mph--with enough confidence to stop a multi-billion dollar project? The industry exempt engineers ran the numbers and found that the likelyhood of insulation hitting the suttle was slim. Possible, but highly unlikely. Give us non-PE's a little credit for a conscience. I would bet that falling insulation is not even in the top 10 most likely catastrophic errors on the problem list. There are no guarantees when you strap thousands of pounds of explosive to a modified airplane and shoot it into the most dangerous environemnt known to man. Even with a PE in charge, you would be taking a large risk every time the shuttle went up.
I agree that having more PE's might have helped, but it is not possible to be 100% safe in a lot of industries. Even in wastewater treatment, you take risks and guesses right? What wt. percentage of cyanide is allowable in a drinking water supply? How about radioactive material? I know that these numbers are low, but they are not zero either. Does anyone really know personally that everything is safe?
Just my opinion,
miner
RE: Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
You are right, this has turned into a good thread....
I think the PE reference thing is a roadblosk to many non-PE's in industry. I don't think its useless however, mentoring is never useless and that is what that requirement tries to accomplish. Not every PE will sign off on someone, and if they do, they have to justify it and its the licensing boards final say.
As for my statement on the Columbia tradegdy, I still stand by my use of 100 percent. It was the exempt engineers taht discovered the problem shortly after take-off. I have no problem with them or their discovery since they were perfect engineers. It was their bosses, the nonPE managers that manage the engineers that overrode their decision based on their lack of understanding of the engineering behind the problem, and maybe partly driven by as you say, a billion dollar project cannot be stopped. Well, if a PE was in any of those management positions, the project would have been stopped (100 percent). Maybe there was nothing they could have done but told the crew to pray and say their peace with their families, maybe the engineers could have figured a way out. We will never know, butr the sad fact is that we engineers knew. That message was discounted along the way, and that was the true failure of industry and government exempt engineers, their decisions can be overrode by laypeople without any recourse.
After the fact, it was attempted to blame the engineers by the same managers that overrode their decisions, but as good engineers, they documented the entire circus of events...its funny, those managers never made it to the news to tell us why they didnt believe the engineers, why the felt they had the authority to everride the engineers decisions, and just what and the hell they were thinking to allow this to happen.....there was no accountability, and I truely think the PE would have made this better....
Just my thoughts, and I appreciate yours on this subject as well....
BobPE
RE: Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
I agree that the references are a good idea and I am constantly on the lookout for a good mentor. The question is though, does your mentor have to be a PE to be a good engineer? As I said before, it is not easy to find a PE and I think a nonPE mentor that you work directly with has a much greater impact on your work than a PE who has no relation to your work. I would say that requiring references from experienced (10 to 15+ years)engineers -with whom you have worked - would achieve the same goal.
as for our other little disagreement...
Licensed Doctors signed their names to Ephedrine based diet pills for years. There are doctors in this country and others working on human cloning right now. Lawyers and CPA's break rules and defend clients that they know to be guilty all the time (see Enron and OJ). Licensure doesn't make people do the right thing. Conscience and ethics do.
Even a licensed engineer will make mistakes and might have believed that there would not have been a problem. Does that fact that the engineer is personally responsible help to bring the astronauts back? I will agree that more PE's in the process MIGHT have helped, but not 100%.
miner
RE: Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
I worked for a company where the worst engineering failure on a product that went to market was managed by that company's only PE! We're talking enough warranty $$$ to make the difference between profit and loss.
RE: Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
NASA Chief Engineer
Theron M. Bradley, Jr.
....Theron M. Bradley, Jr., is the Chief Engineer for NASA. He has held this position since July 2002....Mr. Bradley is a registered Professional Engineer in Nuclear Engineering and Mechanical Engineering in Idaho and Virginia.....
Source:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/codea/codeae/bradley.html
RE: Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
There are lots of PE's in NASA and probably involved in the disaster (trying to stop it that is). The problem is the failure of the system to put ALL PE's in the engineering positions that lead up to the individual that leanne is referring to. There is no requirement to do so, so nonPE's interprete the data and decisions headed towards the top management and there in lies the problem. The problem being EXEMPT again.....no accountability, no responsibility...
Kinda the same as the reference you stated at your company...
It has to make you think.....in my mind, the system killed these people....
BobPE
RE: Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
hmmmm...
So a PE only has to be ethical and responsible when he is surrounded by other PE's??? Shouldn't ensuring that your data is correct and coming from a reliable source be part of a PE's responsibility? If you thought that a mistake was going to be made costing 7 human lives and billions of dollars, wouldn't you do more than send a couple of emails to your immediate boss. I am not a PE and I would be in my CEO's office in a heartbeat.
Sorry Bob, I don't follow your logic.
RE: Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
The NASA problem is that no decisions or calculations needed to be signed by a PE. This is what enacts the full status and control that PE's have. There is no system in industry or government to accomodate the signing and sealing of anything really. Therefor, no liability insurance for the engineer signing, no laws, rules, or regulations requiring the PE to sign and seal; no laws, rules or regulations requiring the manager to have anything signed and sealed by a PE....no accountability, no liability.....
I think one of the reasons that there is such a good record of what happened with columbia is because of the engineers. They did blow the whistle, management stopped the message short of the top...Without a system for the engineer to be liable for their decisions, no one need listen to what they were saying....anf no one did listen..
Now consider this....The final decision on Columbia came down to putting a PE seal on the report saying that all the work to understand the problem indicated that immediate failure was going to occur should the Shuttle reenter. The manager the report was going to was not an engineer, but could not use the report unless it was signed by a PE. The manager wanted to change the report to say everything was just fine.....The PE said hell no, and wouldnt sigh....The process would have stopped there and the engineer would have ruled over the manager when the managers bosses came looking for the report to get the shuttle home and the engineer told their side of the story........The report still needs a PE seal....The managers call in other PE's to consult with the original PE....They determine the problem is real and they need to figure out another plan...Manager overriden by the need for a PE seal....
This could only be done with PE's and only in a system where the PE has this power, not industry or government expempt....
I hope that logic was a bit clearer...I is kinda my idea of how if should have worked....The PE process is very powerful, and yes, the PE assumes a large amount of responsibility, but we are engineers, it we dont accept this responsibility, then who will???? Accountants? LAwyers? Managers?.....Its our job!!! I willingly accept the responsibility for my PE...I know you would too if you had it...
BobPE
RE: Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
There are numerous cases of registered PEs having made bad ethical decisions that resulting in tragedy. There are even more cases of management making bad ethical decisions and some of those bad ethical decisions are pressuring engineers to sign something they otherwise would not.
This is beginning to belong in the ethics arena...
RE: Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
Engineers need to be responsible....the PE is the best available vehicle to accomplish this...
I think this is a good thread for this, for this is where engineering is going in the next 5 years and more....
BobPE
RE: Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
Someone who is going to go around the system will go around the system regardless of a PE stamp on a report.
Reports are ignored all the time - even reports by PEs. Reports by attorneys & CPAs are also ignored. A report with a PE seal will not stop a non-engineer (or even an RPE engineer) manager hell-bent on meeting a schedule or project milestone regardless of consequences.
A PE stamped report would have absolved the engineer(s) of the distaster's blame, but it would not have stopped the managers from over-riding the decision.
It happens all the time. Just because you have this strong sense does not mean that everyone else in the world does also & no PE stamp will change that. It should be that easy. Life would be so much better.
RE: Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
I agree, it is a simple concept, thats the beauty of it...everyone trys to make it harder than it is...for what reasons I have no clue....I'll keep advancing the cause though...and hopefully people that know nothing of engineering will never have to be told what a PE is...
BobPE
RE: Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
I understand that there's also legal culpability. I doubt that PE's are jailed for making honest mistakes any more than doctors are. Criminal negligence, fraud, manslaughter, etc are another matter and I'd guess that unlicensed folk are just as liable.
Beyond the potential for losing their licenses (and if medicine is any example, you can go a long way before it gets yanked), I don't see how a PE is any more or less accountable than any other engineer.
Eagerly awaiting clarification...
0110
RE: Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
yes PE's are more liable, I have 10 million in liability, which in this world wont go far before the take my house, 401K, cars, and what ever wlse is of value...If all engineers were required to be licensed, taking their license away would also take their career away too....THat would be the right price for making a non-honest mistake....
They did fire people at nasa, the engineers...the wrong people in my opinion....
unlicensed folk are not liable, their companies are...I would rather have a person making decisions that a company any day...
BobPE
RE: Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
If the individual tasked with making the go-no go decision on the shuttle was a PE, perhaps the disaster could have been avoided. Human fallibility what it is, I cannot say that it would be 100% guaranteed. I would extrapolate this to any decision made by a PE or not. Why else are you required to carry liability insurance. It wouldn't be needed if it were impossible to make mistakes.
In an attempt (hopefully not futile) to get this thread returned to its track, I am suggesting an appraisal be done on whether or not the PE licensing process is still aligned with the current variety of engineering disciplines. Personally I do not think so. As such, how do you go about establishing licenses for a new genre, maintaining a PE review requirement when there are no PE's practicing in the discipline? You are ethically bound not to practice outside your area of discipline so as leanne points out, the PE ME's that she has worked with would/should not qualify as references for a PE EE. A bit of a catch-22.
Any thoughts on how to break out of this conundrum are welcome indeed.
RE: Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
I think the discussion is wandering along on a good track. It is a tough subject to comprehend. Examples and discussion helps everyone.
I still say 100%...without a doubt in my mind....Liability insurance arose not out of the PE making incorrect decisions, but rather out of the fact that information getting to the PE may be corrupt....allowing him to make incorrect decisions vased upon faulty information...see how this fits into the managers role of needing a PE seal on reports pertaining to engineering? The manager is resolved to a paper pusher, like they should be...pushing engineering onto the people that need it without the managers input.
Once an individual passes the PE exam, they can practive in ANY disipline they feel confident and competent practicing in. I do electrical design for pumping system because I have education and background in that area. I also do architectural engineering because I have background in that area.. I do ME all the time from industrial machine component design to Gausian dispersions for stack emissions...ANY PE can act as a reference, it is up the the PE and the person needing the reference to establish the relationship that the PE needs to feel comfortable signing off on.
There is a lot of misinformation out there among PE's and espically among industrials.....My advice is to get involved, the need for a PE reference is very important, we police ourselves and having a PE "vouch" for prospective PE's is a bullet proof way to keep undeseriable engineers away....I have pushed the bounds of being a reference, because I know the difficulties for industrials and government to get the references....
BobPE
RE: Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
In liu thereof, how about a more rigorous testing requirement? For example, structure the exam to cover more than just technical expertise but also seek to assess judgement through scenario-type questions.
Also, rather than a nebulous "x years of experience and references from y number of PE's" how 'bout a specific list of experiential requirements. For example, 500 hours of system design, 100 hours of component testing, 100 hours of HAZOP analysis, etc.
The CPA & Physician requirements are much more specific in terms of the required experience and I think ours might do well to be too.
It would also make it easier for new grads to know that they're moving along a path to licensure. I know that new accountants are careful in the work that they accept because they know exactly what's required to sit for the CPA exam (which is a 3-day test) and whether they'll get it at a given job.
RE: Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
I agree that something has to be done. I like the reference by PE requirement. It is important that, and I hate to say this this way, that a member of the "club" pass judgement on prospective members. This is important in many ways and is similar to what lawyers and doctors go through. Not everyone can be a doctor or a lawyer, engineering has to be the same way.
I think that the reference rule should be opened up to a character reference, not specifically a work reference. That way, you can meet other PE's, understand what it means to be a PE from them, and get your reference. Quotas for hours of training is not what the PE is about...I think that would make it a mindless process, taking thethought out of the process....
I like your thoughts on CPA's and seeking work related to obtaining their goal. Can you imagine interviewing for an industry and asking how many PE's they had...saying no to them becuase they didn't have any....I think that would send industry a great message. Engineers are real and have to be dealt with. If you do not provide the environment WE engineers want, you will suffer by not having the quality engineers you demand....
All my ranting and raving is based on the premis that WE engineers need to control our own destiny. I do think we engineers are more important than doctors and lawyers for without us, they could not achieve, espire or obtain their goals....I know that is an egotistical opinion on engineering, but after all, it is us engineers that make the world around us that everyone is prospering in...
BobPE
RE: Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
I have often stated that here in Canada P.Eng status is necessary to be an engineer and to practice in any case. There is neither industrial exemption nor are there any exams, as you know them in the US. (There is a brief Professional Practice exam but that is simply an exercise to make sure that you have read the Engineering Act and the Code of Ethics.)
The closest thing we have to an industrial exemption is if you are an employee of the federal government, you do not require registration. That is because the various engineering acts are provincial and the federal Crown is not bound by the laws passed by provincial and municipal governments. However the vast majority of the federal government engineers, myself included for 15 years, are P.Eng’s.
Entry to the profession is gained through graduation from an accredited university, 4 years experience, attendance at a professional development series and references from existing engineers. Our technologists, your Bachelor of Engineering Technolog, are almost always excluded from entry to the profession. They normally go back to university or have a series of up to 22 exams. The exam route is very rare.
I do not really understand the reliance on exams for entry into the profession. To base, in large part, the entry to the profession on 16 hours of test taking cannot really satisfy the aims of professional licensing. The material covered by the FE exam should have been taught in the undergraduate curriculum. Anyone who can pass the requirements for an engineering degree should have that knowledge. Why not use 4 years of educational experience and trust the universities to produce academically qualified people?
To use the PE exam as the standard for entry has in my opinion two fundamental flaws. The first is that performance on a multiple guess exam, where you have the right answer in front of you is a poor proxy for professional competence. The sample exam questions I have seen are along the line of how much flow will this pipe carry. The real professional problem is how much flow capacity do I need, how can I provide this in a long term cost effective and safe manner? Calculating the flow in one case is such a small part of the normal professional problem that the exam does not really test the professional competence of the individual.
The second problem is that the profession is simply too broad and diverse for any examination system to keep up with the developments in the profession or to be capable of adequately testing the knowledge of everyone in the profession. I see numerous examples of this in these forums. The aerospace say that the exams are not relevant, the electronic controls say that the EE exam is heavily slanted to power production etc.
The main hurdle for an EIT to pass is to get references from other P.Eng’s. The provision of letters of reference is something that is taken very seriously by both the association and the individual engineers. The ones that I have sent in have been as complete and as honest as I can make them. (I have provided negative recommendations for people who I did not feel had the character and experience to become engineers and they were declined entry for a while.)
What is a better indicator of suitability, an 8-hour exam or the personal knowledge of an established professional who has known and supervised and reviewed the work of someone for up to 4 years or more?
Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng
Construction Project Management
From conception to completion
www.kitsonengineering.com
RE: Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
BobPE: I must admit to being a bit confused by the fact that you have to have a PE license to do certain things, but *which* PE license doesn't make a difference. I will be sitting for the industrial exam because that is what my career is and it is what I like. (Someone mentioned thermo classes earlier; lucky for me those questions aren't on the IE test.) Ethically speaking, I would have a problem with performing, say, CivE work on a project where I had to be licensed, even if I thought I knew it. I would think that such a person would need to have a license in that field, or at least something reasonably close.
Everyone: I agree that the PE reference is a big issue. I happen to be lucky in that my state will accept references from other engineers who are "not licensed but could be" ... in other words have the education and experience to qualify to sit for the exam. But until that requirement changes for others, I agree that existing PEs need to make themselves more known and available to us non-PEs. If you really want for every engineer to be a PE, you can't expect us all to leave our industry jobs to get "real" experience - 95% of us would have nowhere to go (no openings), and the vacancy would be filled by even less qualified individuals.
RE: Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
There's no smiley for a standing ovation, but you are getting one here...
If you really want for every engineer to be a PE, you can't expect us all to leave our industry jobs to get "real" experience - 95% of us would have nowhere to go (no openings), and the vacancy would be filled by even less qualified individuals.
RE: Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
That's the point, it betters us all....
BML:
Once you get the PE, its up to you to decide how to use it....Read up on your specific state laws, some states differ, like Cali, If you sign civil as an engineer you need the earthquake test....
BobPE
BobPE
RE: Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
I don't have a problem with taking a test or two. I take exams in grad school. I'm taking two exams this fall/winter for ASQ certification. We can all take the FE exam (with proper preparation, IMO, any competent engineer should be able to pass within a reasonable number of takes, less than 4), but without the recommendations of the requisite PEs having knowledge of our work - current industry exempts cannot complete the registration process.
And, it would be unethical to ask a PE to lie about being familiar with our work. N'est pas?
You want all engineers registered. That's clear & quite obvious in a majority of posts I've read by you. Well, that's a fine idea. But, the current RPEs are going to have to step up to help those of us working in industry without PEs in developing a solution to this required recommendation issue.
You can't expect the desired change to start with the industry employers. Industry will never volunteer to do away with the exemption they currently have. Instead, divide & conquer from within. How? Current RPEs help industry exempts who would like to be PEs. RPEs mentor students who will soon be engineering graduates. Grow the RPE community up within industry so that those new industry RPEs who are promoted to management will encourage and mentor engineers in their organizations promoting RPE status. Eventually, the industry exemption could be eliminated from within. However, this requires effort by NSPE and current RPEs. What is the saying? Put up or shut up?
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem....Become part of the solution. Maybe my idea of divide & conquor is not the best solution, so figure out something better - you're an engineer. Solutions are what we do. Help figure out a way to make a change instead of just complaining in every post about industry exempts. It's getting old...
I think this horse has been beaten to death.
RE: Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
Oh, and I wouldn't expect you to ask anyone to lie....you would be surprised the level some PE's would go to help you, if you ask them....start with the FE and cross the PE bridge when you get there....
If you dont like my posts, stop reading them..I like your posts, so I think I will keep reading them.....lighten up a bit....
BobPE
RE: Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
PE registration is on my list. So is ASQ CQE, ASQ CQA, and my Masters
Of all of the items on my list, finishing that stubborn chihuahua with his CD may well be the hardest.
RE: Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
Let me give you an example. I happen to be in a similar position to leanne it seems.
There are approximately 11000 RPE's within the state where I work.
The state requirement is for 5 references, 3 of which MUST be RPE's
I have been working within the state for over 15 years.
Number of RPE's worked with =0 Subcontracted with=0 Personally known=0.
Despite efforts to the contrary, it is not likely that my career will evolve into licensure any time soon.
leanne has started some good threads on mentorship and RPE proactive involvement in getting engineer's licensed.
Let the discussions continue!
Regards
RE: Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
I agree that this is a stumbling point for many engineers. It can be overcome...Hopefully more PE's will post to leanne's other thread and come up with some ideas as to how it can be acomplished....I know that I have worked on subcontracted out work for industry and my involvement with the project managers from the industry was used by them as a refernece. Try to sub out some work to outside consultants. They MUST be PE's if they consult you on engineering, this is an easy way to get exposure while doing usefull work (rather than going to stuffy PE society meetings). It is not an easy task, it was intended to be hard. Getting to sit for the exams is often harder than the exams themselves. That is by design....
I agree, lets keep talking about it...I think there is a lot of good infor being thrown around....
BobPE
RE: Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
My "problem?" is that with the richness, experience and diversity of engineering talent within my employer, we do not tend to send work out to subcontractors. The company tends to hire additional talent if needed and with an average employee experience of 12 years, tends to keep them. A great place to work but not conducive to encountering RPE's.
Regards
RE: Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
All of us *want* to get our licenses. We feel confident of passing the test and confident in our professional and technical skills. We just don't have the contacts.
You say "It's supposed to be hard" and "It can be overcome". It's not hard for the doctors, lawyers, and CPA's. Why should it be hard for engineers?
The first PE's didn't have PE references so why should I need them? Why is it that only a PE is considered a worthwhile reference?
I'm with Leanne - this horse done been whipped to death.
Hopefully someone will come up with a scheme that permits registration by those of us without the PE network. If not, the industrial exemption will reign. (And be actively supported by folks like me just so that I can continue to work.)
RE: Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
I think its harder for doctors than it is for us. Lawyers and CPA's...well look ath what they do....they cant really kill people in their careers, so should their tests be hard?
A PE will not be "given" to anybody, they have to earn it. The process is not to terribly hard and a lot of good information is in these posts in order to acomplish it....
Set your mind to do it, and get it done...
As for the industry exemption reigning...well, if thats what you guys want....PE's will make it go away one day...
BobPE
RE: Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
I don't mean that that's easy in the sense of effort required. What I mean is that the system is set up so that if you just go through the system, put in the effort, and you're competent, your license is basically automatic.
For an engineer, you can go through the system, put in the effort, and be competent but still be denied licensure based only on the fact that you haven't worked with PE's.
The system is structured to enable doctors to become licensed. The system is structured *against* engineers getting licensed (except in the civil arena, where PE's abound).
WRT the industrial exemption reigning, if the PE's move toward eliminating it *without* figuring out how to get folks like me into the club then that would emphasize one of the biggest weaknesses in our culture - selfishness!
RE: Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
If doctors dont complete the residency, they do not get licensed....same process here with engineers, only ours is a lot simpler that a doctors...
The point is (leanne!!! LOL) I do what ever I can to include all engineers, I can not do it alone and a lot of other PE's dont care to do anything at all about getting all engineers invloved. YOU (exempt engineers) must start asking questions, requesting and demanding changes from the state boards for licensure, finding ways to overcome references.....THere were a few industry engineers in this forum that discussed their PE's they did it...Look for good PE's and ask for their help....dont drop it because its hard...just figure out any way you can and do it...
BobPE
PS I will never be worn out talking to people about getting licensed!!!! I think some people are worn out with me...well thats too bad...LOL but I still hope they get licensed anyway...
BobPE
RE: Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
1) Pushing for universally required licensure is not selfish. Doing it without considering how to structure it so that people already in the system don't have to start back at the bottom, is.
2) It's not impossible to get the PE without working with PE's. A scant few can. The odds of success seem very slight. Using the very few exceptions as the example and saying, "see, you can do it, too" is naive. Everybody's circumstances are different.
3) If a doctor doesn't complete a residency, it's either (a) incompetence, or (b) lack of effort. I'm not talking about either of those cases. I'm talking about the system. As an aspiring physician, you simply go through the (very arduous) process and come out on the other side with a license. The system is structured to create licensed physicians. I don't know whether you even need references from 3-5 licensed doctors in order to sit for the boards.
For engineers (outside of civil), this is not true. The system is not structured to create licensed people. To get licensed requires as much luck as competence (did you or did you not get the opportunity to work with PE's).
Do you really think that the only reason why folks like me and leanne and PSE are not licensed is because we're lazy or unable to pass the test? (That's a rhetorical question - I'm pretty sure you don't.) It's the system.
Changing the system is good but needs to address those of us who've been in the workforce for a long time.
It's simple to say "We need universal licensing." The hard part is *how* to transition there from where we are. I don't think I've read any suggestions about that.
Cliches become cliches for a reason and "the devil is in the details" certainly applies to this.
RE: Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
I started out in engineering with the goal of obtaining a PE. So naturally I understood the process before taking a job and made sure that job would allow me to obtain my goals.
I gave you a good how on what to do to get licensed. Write your state board a letter and ask them how they will allow you to obtain the PE...
I dont think thre are devils in the details, its all spelled out. The devils are in bending the rules, that takes more work for exempt engineers than it did for me, you are right...I fit the rules to a T by design...but I started out in engineering wanting that.
BobPE
RE: Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
Bob,
Regarding industry being selfish, you bet! They are in business for the purpose of making a profit. So am I. If the industry I work for is not willing to compensate what I feel is equitable, I will move on. My job is to make the company money. Ideally from their standpoint I will make them more money than what they spend on me.
I am not giving up on the licensing though I may end up retired by the time I would qualify
RE: Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
taking from the questionable Bill Clinton, it depends on the defination of what "work" is....I have been able to comfortably be a reference for people that have given me subcontractd work from industry. I factored them into the project team at the beginning of the project and they performed project work under me. This was organized at the proposal stage, and initiated by me, I was on my soap box with them to get their PE's and they had the same problems you stated...It can be done, just look for the opportunities...there are PE's everywhere, you just dont see it since we are a modest bunch (me excluded for the purpose of getting the word out...lol). You have to ask since the only way you can tell is a business card or signed letter with a title....
BobPE
RE: Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
I think I'm developing an allergy...
RE: Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
Here is a true story that should make you feel comfortable.
I was passing in front of the kitchen table that a certain PE had the blue prints for a wastewater treatment plant he was designing layed out on.
I was looking over his shoulder and inquiring what municipality was letting out for bids a new wastewater treatment plant.
After he answered my question he picked up the phone and called one of his engineers and asked the following question?
"I thought we were going to use bleach for disinfection?"
I walked across the hall and picked up a gallon container of Clorox. I then went and placed it on his blue prints and pointed to the small print on the jug of chlorox:
"Ingredients: Sodium Hypochorite"
Next, I pointed to the phrase, Sodium Hypochlorite, printed on the blue prints next to the disinfection chamber.
Before the senior engineer on the other end of the phone had time to pull up his drawings, my in-law hung up the phone.
Here is my solution to all those Professional Civil Engineers who are designing wastewater treatment plants - With your PE stamp please guarantee your work in the form of a fine - for every pound of BOD, or ounze of TSS over the NPDES permit, you reimburse taxpayers!
Likewise, to drinking water treatment plant designers(PE) - if someone becomes ill due to the water, then you pay for the emergency room visit!
DO NOT POINT your finger at the WWTP operator.
If you were driving a high center of gravity SUV with tires that peel away, you wouldn't want the designer to point his finger at you - the operator?
Here is is my question to PE's - Why hasn't a single univeristy in this country started a degree program for - Water/Wastewater Engineering? Next, that engineer can then sit for his Water/Wastewater Professional Engineer license only after "operating" a drinking water and/or wasterwater treatment plant for 5 years. Not designing, but actually operating the plant - from mixing chemicals to backwashing sand filters to conducting routine lab tests - free chlorine residual, TSS, pH, etc.
When a Civil Engineer (PE) is designing a bridge during the morning, letting out a bid for repaving an asphalt road in the afternoon, and working on the design for a wastewater treatment plant in the evening, then I think it is quite obvious what the PE stands for - Plenty of Expertise (Master of None). PE also stands for "Paper Expert." On the lighter side how about "Phantom Engineer." It is an illusion, when a PE spends millions of tax payers dollars designing a wastewater treatment plant when he doesn't know how to "Treat" water!
The PE licensing system needs to closely reflect the engineers "true" expertise.
For example, when a 4th year medical student graduates he can use the title, MD - General Practitioner (GP). Next, he goes into an internship such as general surgery. He takes his boards and becomes a "Board Certified" general surgeon or "cutter". He my then move on to another internship - Cardiac Thoracic - and become a Board Certified Cardiac Thoracic Surgeon. He may receive a fellowship and truely specialize, for example, in heart transplants.
Engineering disciplines are too broad. Engineers need to specialize, for example, water treatment, then become an expert in that speciality and next sit before a board of water treatment experts (thumbs up or thumbs down)to become certified.
Then, the board certified water treatment engineer leaves bridge building to a board certified bridge engineer. Likewise, the certified bridge engineer is not just a structural engineer. He/she would be a structural engineer first who is a board certified bridge engineer.
Sincerely,
Todd
toddforet@usa.net
RE: Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
There is a degree for water and wastewater engineering.
Do you have your PE? If not, do a little research, you may surprise yourself. PE's are liable for plant performance.
I do kinda agree with you, if this is what you were saying. Taxpayer dollars should go to making sure that only PE's run any plant...Thre is too much liability in operating a plant, more than an operator should be responsible for. The states here in the US don't allow PE's to run plants though, we just design them, write the O&M manual so the operators understand how to run them, and performances test and troubleshoot them. I personally don't mind that since I do not want the responsibility of making an operator error and killing people.
Just my thoughts....If you want to start a lets bash PE's thread, start a new post under the ignorance category...
RE: Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
I am not bashing PEs. On the contrary I'm a Naval Engineer. But not a licensed PE. After my tenure in the Navy as a Chief Engineer I sold water treatment chemicals for two of the largest water treatment chemical companies in the US. I 1994 I broke out on my own and I designed a different type of UV light for treating water.
The UV light system has truely evolved to an extremely high power system that can treat bacteria in opaque fluids. It will be tested by Virgina Tech BioEngineering Department for destruction of mycobacteria in metal working fluids.
It works extremely well for drinking water and wastewater. My first hurdle is to train the local PEs on how and why the system is better than other UV light systems
The information I was trying to pass along is simply this - the environmental industry has become very diverse with respect to the various engineering fields of expertise, that someone needs to get a grasp on "expertise"! It seems that every single CE that is a registered PE is selling himself off as an environmental expert - where is the formal training!
Oh one other thing - In the eyes of the EPA Criminal Investigator he guns for the person who signed off on the DMR. He can care less about the engineer who built the facility.
RE: Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
Binary made a statement: "The first PE's didn't have PE references so why should I need them? Why is it that only a PE is considered a worthwhile reference?"
It seems to me there is a very good reason for requiring PE's as some form of reference.
1 - The board knows the character of the PE. i.e. PE's has initially demonstrated their competence and character to the board. Then during their ongoing work career, complaints of bad performance due to technical incompetence or character flaw are reported to the board.
2 - The PE has something at stake in making a recommendation. If he knowingly falsifies the document by saying "yes, this person designed rocket ships", then he puts his own livelihood in jeopardy. Falsifying a reference is cause for losing one's licence.
Think about the practicality. What does it mean if Joe Smith non-PE signs a statement that you designed rocket ships and were darned good at it. The board doesn't know Joe Smith. He may be a highly reputable, competent and truthful person, or he may be the fry guy at McDonald's. How is the board supposed to know. With the volume of applicants, is it practical for them to investigate the character of the references?
I guess it's possible but certainly would require more manpower effort and $ to accomplish.
RE: Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
The professionalism bit comes from how you manage the gap. I would be horrified if someone asked me to sign off sparkie design work (i'm a clankie!).
On a slightly different note, does the body regulating PE license require the PE to commit to some form of continual professional development?
No more things should be presumed to exist than are absolutely necessary - William of Occam
RE: Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
RE: Revamping the PE liscensing Process?
It reminds me of the conversation I had this past week while flying with my Father. We started talking about the various ratings he had earned. It struck me that a similar type of system would also be useful to the PE.
Regards