×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

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

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

Posting Guidelines

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

Students Click Here

Jobs

If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)
38

If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

(OP)
As stated in the "Where's the respect" thread, I'd like to explore a couple of things:
  1. In the view of some PE's, unlicensed engineers are neither professionals nor "real" engineers.
    If that's true, then what are we? Many of us have worked far too long and had too much success to be considered interns, apprentices, or trainees. Many of us have graduate degrees and advanced theoretical and applied knowledge. We're something and I'd like to understand what people who hold the "not pro, not real" viewpoint think.

  2.  
  3. Related to that is what you believe to be the role of the unlicensed "engineer." Acknowledging that there are many of us working under the industrial exemption, what is our role in the current structure?

My view is that we are professionals and we are *real* engineers. (BTW, if I'm not a professional then how come I'm an exempt employee?)

I see the role of the non-PE as doing whatever engineering work needs to be done for which one has the knowledge/skills/experience to do. I see the PE as the one who provides the oversight and approves whatever critical pieces of a project there are.

This is very simplistic, I know, and I'm eagerly awaiting input from those of you who understand this much better than I do.

I sincerely appreciate the time and energy you choose to put into discussing this. I, for one, will benefit greatly from the discourse.

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

2
Binary,
I don't understand the bitterness in your post.  I worked as a "real" engineer under the industrial exemption for 21 years.  I decided a few years back that the direction I wanted my career to take required that I take the PE exam.  I'm doing the same work now as before I got the license.  The only difference is that when I retire from a major corporation in September, I'll be able to hang out a shingle and "hold myself forth to the public as a Registered Professional Engineer".

I haven't seen many posts on these boards that ascribe any super powers to PE's or posts that put non-PE's down.  Maybe I'm just not looking hard enough.  

The vast majority of the 164,000 people registered on this forum do not have a PE license.  From the posts I see here I would be suprised if more than 5% of the people in Eng-Tips have a PE or ChEng or any other government-administered license.

The role of unlicensed engineers is very clear in the law - with a PE you can represent those clients that want you to represent them, without a PE you can only do engineering work for your employeer.  If your employeer is an Engineering Firm, then your work has to be supervised and signed off by a PE.  In industry it is rare for a senior engineer (as you seem to be) to have to have to get a PE to supervise and stamp their in-house work.

The question about being an "exempt employee" is just silly.  I work (in oil and gas) with many Field Foremen who have High School diploma's (or in some cases a GED) and are exempt employees.  In the world of HR an exempt employee is simply someone who is exempt from the awsome burdon of getting paid overtime.

The advice I always give young engineers is that they MUST take the FE (EIT) early in their carrer because it is very painful to have to go back and learn that material all over again (I waited 12 years and it hurt).  Then they can decide for themselves when (or if) they want to take the PE exam - some companies have an automatic raise for passing the PE (mine didn't, but I was in it for the future so it didn't hurt too bad).  

If you feel like PE's are putting you down because you don't have a PE, why not get one?

David

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

4
zdas04....fantastic post....

BobPE

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

2
I do not have a PE cert as yet.  I do have a BSME and many years experience.  Still, I think I could bear to part with the title "engineer" if it meant that the profession (in the U.S.) was doing a better job of qualifying who is and isn't allowed to use the title.

When I see a person who says "I've been doing this job for 10 or 15 years and I can do everything those engineers are doing!", it usually means, "I've been in the same place or trade for ten or 15 years and I can do everything that other people around me that have been in the same place or trade for 10 or 15 years with a degree are doing."

One of the things that is implied with the descriptors "professional" and/or "engineer" is that the individual so described is drawing from a well of knowledge and experience that is far broader and deeper than the immediate requirements of his current position of employment.

I may make you feel, but I can't make you think.

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

I don't mind people with an engineering education or requisite related work experience being referred to as an engineer even if they do not have a PE - probably because of the industry in which I've primarily worked since getting my BSEE. I do not have my PE because the industry I am in does not require it & typically does not reward one for getting it. I do regret not taking my EIT years ago when the book stuff was all fresh.

I do not like to hear waste removal personnel referred to as Sanitation Engineers or housewives/husbands designated as Domestic Engineers.

from dictionary.com (Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.):

Engineer (noun) \En`gi*neer"\, [OE. enginer: cf. OF. engignier, F. ing['e]nieur.]
  1. A person skilled in the principles and practice of any branch of engineering.
  2. One who manages as engine, particularly a steam engine; an engine driver.
  3. One who carries through an enterprise by skillful or artful contrivance; an efficient manager. [Colloq.]


RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

2
1. The discipline of Engineering was around long before degrees, certification, and liscensures existed.

2. Significant feats and advances in engineering have occured absent of any formal recognition of being such.
(The Wright Brothers would be considered technicians today.)

3. Competentcy should not be represented by a piece of paper.  Competency should be obvious, but evaluated on an individual basis, by the customer, regardless of ANY degrees, certification, or liscensures.  (Certification DOES NOT guarantee a good engineer.)

4. The only purpose certification should serve is to show the customer that a certain consideration has been made to demonstrate competenctcy to a 3rd (unbiased) party with no vested interest in the sucess or failure of that engineer.

5. The problem of liscensure is NOT the pressing problem of engineering today.  The scope of the true problem is huge: it involves the lack of recognition of product and process patents across countries, knowledge theft, the sharp contrast of pay scales for engineers across continents, and the philosophy of "cheapness is first priority" when considering the origin of capital engineering services, projects, processes, and manufacturing.

6. College football is coming! w00t!

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

3
I hadn't planned on participating in this thread, but...

rhodie made the following comment:

3. Competentcy should not be represented by a piece of paper.  Competency should be obvious, but evaluated on an individual basis, by the customer, regardless of ANY degrees, certification, or liscensures.  (Certification DOES NOT guarantee a good engineer.)

In an ideal world, this statement is correct.  And in an ideal world, Karl Marx' vision of communal life would be the ideal life, too.  But we don't live in an ideal world.

The simple fact is that most clients cannot distinguish core competency.  Sad, but true.  The creation of professional licensing was a response to this basic fact of life -

I learned about this fairly early in life - I come from a family of engineers; my Granddad held Texas PE license No 100, and his mentor and friend T.U. Taylor (first Dean of Engineering at The University of Texas) held Texas PE license No 1.  To my knowledge, both strongly advocated professional licensing to prevent unqualified people from practicing engineering to a public unable to discern minimum "core" competency.

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

7
rhodie-
Your point (3)--"Certification DOES NOT guarantee a good engineer".  True, but certification does indicate a minimum degree of competency. I would argue that a BS does not. (I'm sure everybody has stories about classmates who they wouldn't trust to design a toothpick, yet who still graduated through the efforts of others).

I think your point (4) is behind why many, including myself, advocate for mandatory licensing.  Your issues brought up in (5) are, I believe, the children born from a lack of certification.

I am not a PE-bigot. I am the only PE in my office, but I hold no notions that this makes me the best engineer in my office. I believe that the PE, like the Boards and Bars, is representative of the minimum qualifications of the profession.  From my experience, any capable engineering graduate should be able to pass both the FE and PE exams (maybe not on the first try, but eventually).  If we as a profession had such standards, I think we would ultimately be well-served.

Brad

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

Focht3, Bradh:

I yield to your wisdom.  I have not even put 5 years into the profession yet, so I may not be in such a good position to fix it.

I meant to enforce the idea that the "guaranteed fitness of use" burden should not hide under the merit of certification, but rather on the specific laws and regs. (and common sense!) pertaining to the engineering project.  That is, just because we trust the PE'd engineer not to kill us doesn't relieve us of the resposibilty to determine on our own whether or not he is doing a good job.  The burden should always fall on the customer, because it is his health that is at risk. (The customer in this case might be both the end-user AND the corporate engineering department that hires the engineer.)  I will ask the same stupid questions of a PE's design that I would a technician.

I think the reason that I am so cautious regarding PE's is because one of my professors in college spoke long and proudly about his liscense, yet was such an inept idiot deviod of common sense that the physical plant at the university refused to use his stamp (and paid a consultant big $ for the honor.)  

With that aside, I agree with you that a PE does mean something.  I tend to respect PE's more than the common BSxE engineer, because I know what the PE's go through to get liscensed.  However, the idea that being a PE represents the pinnacle of engineering ability is incorrect.  I see that no one in this thread is trying to state otherwise.  In fact, zdas04's makes clear sense to me.  However, on other threads of a similar nature, there have been those who declared PE-less industry exempts as "sub-par" engineers.

It needs to be agreed that if I lack a PE, my ability may be no less deficient, but I simply lack the required legal certification to say so.

Thanks to all,
Rhodie, EIT, CMfgET

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

Rhodie:
"It needs to be agreed that if I lack a PE, my ability may be no less deficient, but I simply lack the required legal certification to say so."

I agree entirely. I am a philosophical proponent of the PE for the reasons described above.  I respect that others are not, and lacking a legal requirement have chosen not to get one.

I think that forcing this criteria upon society is the equivalent of plowing the seas (but I can always hope).

Good for you for getting your EIT.  I hope you follow up with the PE when your time comes.

Brad

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

6
This post was also sent to the thread that this thread originated from. My apologies.

Ok I have to add something. The people that believe a PE is the only way to achieve the title engineer are just plain wrong. Electrical consultants, for the most part, are system integrators. They purchase or specify everthing available COTS (commercially off the shelf). Sure there are those that receive requests to produce a product that solves a specific problem. These types of companies are not the norm. The norm is a consultant working on power distribution or process control or industrial streamlining. The COTS parts must come from somewhere. They come from engineers who have designed the product. Chances are, the engineer that designed the product does not have a PE because PE for electrical engineers (in the majority of states) deals with power ditribution, transmission, etc. Now what value would this have to a guy designing cellular phones. Absolutely none. It has been my experience that the 'design engineer' does not have a PE and the 'systems engineer' does. Do not get me wrong, both engineers have to do analysis of their system (fault, short circuit, relay coordination, etc for the system engineer). Both engineers are equally important in the grand scheme of things. The people that generally want all engineers to get a PE are the disciplines that generally only work in consulting firms such as civil engineers (and construction companies). These types of companies need to have a way to make their clients feel comfortable with who they are hiring to do their project before it is complete. In the design engineers world, the potential clients can simply evaluate their finished product for functionality, safety, reliability, etc. If it meets their needs then the deal is done. There is no need to verify they have a PE when the product will tell the tale. This is very clear to me and should be to all 'ENGINEERS'

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

Getting back to the topic of this thread, I am still waiting to hear what I am?  I am an industry exempt engineer in a field with no path to a PE and no PE's to study under in a state where PE license has little meaning.  I have worked very hard to learn everything possible and have proven myself to my peers enough to be given substantial responsibilities.

According to dannym in the "where's the respect" thread I (and the majority of "engineers" in the US) am an intellectually deficient fraud.  This opinion was applauded by 3 people who deemed his attack worthy of stars.  While I do not agree with or appreciate this answer I have to respect that dannym was willing to give such an inflamatory response.

Is this the answer that everyone is satisfied with?  Is this is the only answer that is going put forward by my more experienced peers?  Is this the kind of guidance and knolwedge I can expect from a PE?

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

[u[miner00 posted the following:

According to dannym in the "where's the respect" thread I (and the majority of "engineers" in the US) am an intellectually deficient fraud.  This opinion was applauded by 3 people who deemed his attack worthy of stars.  While I do not agree with or appreciate this answer I have to respect that dannym was willing to give such an inflammatory response.

I'm licensed in Texas and California, and I don't consider you "an intellectually deficient fraud" simply because you are not licensed.  (Now, there may be other reasons to call you names that I'm not aware of!)


Frankly, if dannym did express that opinion, and others "starred" his post for that reason, then they're obnoxious and their behavior is reprehensible.  But please get a grip - the world is full of educated morons.  Consider the poor sap that made such a statement, and move on.  Life is too important to dwell on such nonsense!

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

in defense of poor old BobPE, I did not star dannym's post, that is not how I feel...lol...although many may think I did...lol....I did however star zdas04's post at the top of this thread...I think it answers the question in a slightly different way than it was asked....The PE benefits YOU as an engineer...it gives YOU freedom that industry does not want nor want you to have....none of my posts have been offensive personal attacks, although I have suffered attack....I take it with a grain of salt....

An exempt engineer path is a rightous one, that benefits someone else....A PE path is equally rightous and benefits the engineer personally in addition to someone else.....I just don't understand why engineers don't get it...

BobPE

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

This thread is going so fast that it is very hard to keep up.  Might there be a bit of emotion in our staid industry?

I have to respond to Buzzp.  I'm a flangehead and firmly believe that as soon as everyone stops believing in electricity it will stop working.  

That being said, let me delve into a hypothetical case -- if a EE designs the equipment for a large computer network hub and specifies a cooling system for a transformer that is 1/10 the size actually required, the site is built to his specifications (and no one catches the error), and then the site goes into service, overheats, burns down a complex, and kills 20 people.  

If the EE had a PE (and stamped the drawings) he could (and probably should, and possibly would) be brought up on criminal charges and go to jail.  Same EE without the PE would not face any risk of criminal charges (his company would face significant civil complaints and he might be sucked into that, but probably not).  The difference is that those folks who have gone to the bother to get their PE are assuming a personal liability and they are in fact putting their money (and their butts) where their mouths are.  

Does that willingness to allow an opinion to become a chargeable offense make them better engineers?  Not necisarilly (oh for a spell check), but it does demonstrate a conviction to their profession.  I was once a nuclear power plant operator (17 years old with a high school diploma) in the U.S. Navy and they called us "engineers".  The Navy has a long standing tradition of calling the "black gang" "engineers".  So to use the terminology of this thread I've been a pseudo-engineer, a real-engineer, and now I'm a professional-engineer.  I'm certainly not a better person than I was in that engine room 30 years ago, but now I have assumed a different (and scarier) personal responsibility.

The language won't change, we will always have with us sanitation engineers, domestic engineers, and the black gang.  In Texas and many other states there is legislation on the books to cause fines to be levyed against anyone who "holds themselves forth as egineers" and doesn't have a PE -- Texas goes to some length to say that engineers working under the industrial exemption may not have the word "engineer" on their business cards or letter heads.  It's coming.  

Miner00, excuses are so very easy to come up with.  When I started working on my PE I was able to find exactly 2 PE's in a company of 110,000 folks (35,000 engineers).  I made contact with folks in engineering firms, joined the state society of professional engineers (you don't have to be a PE to join), joined the SPE and the ASME and I found the other 3 PE's willing to vouch for me.  It just took work, tenacity, and cheek.

David

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

I have found this thread to prove 1 thing, a PE will be an engineer who becomes specialized in a field, and is willing to assume the liability and restriction for a specific personal need. The need of these peoples service to a business is to limit liability. As the owner of a small business who designs lots of products for several different industries, I hire contract PE’s when the liability justifies, engineers with degrees in a specific field as needed. But when a product needs to be designed and built that required several disciplines for design and construction, a person with general knowledge, good people management skills will be the best lead designer. The attitude exuded here is common with people who think they are better than others because of a piece of paper, and it take good management skills to use these people in a mixed discipline environment. If you don’t have a PE and want one go for it, but don’t expect it to make you a better engineer, happy, get you more respect, or anything else and you will be ok.
One thing schools do not teach is how to manage people when ego’s come into play.

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

EdDanzer,
I hope your tirade meant something to you, because I just read it 8 times and got absolutely nothing out of it.  If you read into the remarks of the PE's that have responded to this thread that we think we're better than someone else or that we have some sort of Napoleonic Complex that shows we have poor self esteem I really feel sorry that we've done such a poor job of communicating.  

I guess a person sees what you are ready to see and you see us as lame-oids that need a piece of paper to hold over the community's head to make up for our low self-esteem.  I find this particular stereotype distressing, but I will get over it.

David

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

Thank you all for getting back on the subject. I wasn't trying to make excuses or get sympathy for us non-PE's.  I really wanted to separate the egoistic rants from the actual opinions.  My initial post was made in response to ZDAS04's first post asking where the bitterness came from.

In truth, I am too young to qualify for the PE anyway. Some day it might be important to me and by that time I will probably have had the opportunity to work with a PE in a field where my experience will qualify.

Here is a question though, how is getting a PE better for me as an engineer.  I understand how it might be better for me as a part of the general public, making engineers be responsible, but it seems like it would be against my best interests.

It seems to me that working in a large company and being one of only a few PE's would open you up to all kinds of law suits.  Say someone in your department working on a project in which you have no involvement, makes a mistake that causes an injury.  When the lawyers look into that project, are they not going to grab the PE's to sue first?  They wouldn't care and could convince a jury to not care that you had nothing to do with the problem.  You get sued anyway.

I understand having the PE when you are working on your own or in a small company where you can have control over all potential safety issues, but it seems dangerous to be licensed in a large company. Sticking your neck out there to deflect blame from the company doesn't seem like a good move to me.  PE = Sacrificial Lamb???

I may be naive here, and I am a firm believer in personal responsibility, but I am not one to volunatarily take blame for others mistakes.  Please tell me if I am wrong here.

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

zdas04,
 Your example is not consistent with what I do. I do not specify cooling systems. Nor do I specify anything for use in such a building. I design products to be specified. You missed the point entirely. I think several people in here are missing out on one important point that I thought I made clear. Let me reiterate:
   "In the design engineers world, the potential clients can simply evaluate their finished product for functionality, safety, reliability, etc. If it meets their needs then the deal is done. There is no need to verify they have a PE when the product will tell the tale. This is very clear to me and should be to all 'ENGINEERS'"

The clients in my case may be registered engineers or they may be a panel shop where UL approval is required. There is no need to repeat this later on I hope- NOT ALL ENGINEERS ARE CONSULTANTS-WE ARE THE ONES THAT MAKE THE PRODUCTS YOU SPECIFY. We have to get safety agency approvals for our products so if a fire occurs, you can run right to UL, CSA, TUV or whoever and say whats up? How come you can not understand this?  

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

miner-
I have a PE.  I am only liable when I review something (and stamp it).  I am not liable for others' work in my company that I did not oversee. Therefore, my PE does not make me more liable as long as long as I don't use it.  However, it makes me very valuable if I need to use it.

In four years, I have never once used my stamp.  I often joke that from an actual functional standpoint, my PE stamp amounts to nothing more than a cool book stamp (I get to emboss my engineering books). So why did I go to the trouble? Philosophical reasons as I suggested above, and secondarily what BobPE suggests--it opens up doors in some cases, and can free you from "indusry-exempt" servitude.

One note--when I think of the list of the smartest, most talented engineers I've worked with, there's not a PE in the top 10.

And to answer the original question--You're an engineer, I'm a Professional Engineer.  You're in trouble if you "hang a shingle" stating you're an Engineer (as this act would imply Professional); but short of clearly-illegal acts, don't let anybody denigrate you because they chose (or more often were required) to get their PE.

Human nature is such that we all want to equate some prestige or moral superiority to our actions, especially when they are "above and beyond" the norm. I think this is behind some of the "non-PE bashing" by some of my fellow PE's (although not in this particular thread). Am I proud of getting my PE? I'd be lying if I said "no". However, I respect that most people who don't need one do not hold my reasons I had for getting mine.  I don't hold that against them, nor view them as intellectually or morally inferior.

Brad

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

2
(OP)
Brad,

Good post. It's nice to hear the PE side from someone without a chip on their shoulder.

You are to be commended for getting your PE and I, for one, think it's something to be proud of.

Humility is a valuable commodity which is much too often overlooked.

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

2
Brad, Bravo!

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

I can clearly see that licensing of drivers have made such a big improvement in quality of my commute.

and by golly I sure respect them all, too...

TTFN

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

Buzzp,
Aparently your point was, and continues to be, far too subtle for my limited abilities to comprehend.  I'll leave it at that.

Binary,
If I'm one of the PE's with a chip on my shoulder then I appologise for anything I might have said that made it seem like I have a problem with non-PE's.  I was one for over 20 years.  I had a personal reason for wanting to get my PE and I got it.  It didn't make me a better engineer, it didn't make me any more money or any less dispensable to my company.  I wouldn't expect anyone without a pressing personal need to ever put themselvs thru the 6 months of 18 hour days that I (personnaly) felt I (personnaly) needed to give myself an acceptable chance of passing on the first try.  At the end of the day some one individual has to stand up and say "I was responsible".  Before I got the PE that person wasn't me, now it is.  If this sounds like I'm carrying a chip, then I'm not getting my point across and I'll just quietly fold up my tent and go to the technical forums instead of this one.

David

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

EdDanzer...

that was some post....

I have that piece of paper, I make more, am happpy, get more respect, and much more...


Why dont you get the PE, aren't you curious to see if I am right or full of BS?

I will do what ever it takes to get people to take their PE....having a PE I can see how important it is, for those without a PE, I can understand how you may not get the point....

as for ego's, hmmmmmm....I manage LARGE ego's every day, and yes, the PE helps me to do this....

Am I better than someone else because of the PE...no...I am different than other engineers without the PE though...and you know what, it really makes a difference....

BobPE



RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

(OP)
zdas - No sir, David, you do not come off as having a chip on your shoulder. That was aimed at the comments from some of the PE's who've stated that non-PE's are not professionals nor are we *real* engineers (hence the title of the thread).

You have eloquently stated your reasoning behind choosing to *earn* your license. Beleive it or not, I have a lot of respect for PE's and what it takes to earn one.

I simply took (& take) humbrage at the arrogance of some who've decided that their PE's somehow make them better than the rest of us. In no way have I seen that from you. I truly appreciate your responses to this thread.

BobPE - I also respect the obvious conviction behind your statements and the respect with which you are expressing yourself. You're coming close to having a convert here. Actually, I've never really disagreed with your position, just the arrogance of some of the other PE's who are proclaiming their superiority solely due to their licenses.

I hope that someday circumstances present themselves to me to enable me to get the requisite recommendations to earn my license (that's what holds me back...lack of exposure to PE's but needing them to vouch for me - I have no concern about the exam whatsoever).

If you want to push for universal licensure, you need to think about how those of us without the references can get into the club, at least those of us who'd like to.

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

binary:

I got heat for another one of my posts where i stated that we have to do something to bring exempt engineers on board....everyone assumed I meant something about the testing...but I wasnt saying that....you hit the nail on the head...you being in indusrty are not exposed to other PE's, and that makes it hard, if not impossible, to sit for the exam...It is my opinion that this is by the design of industry itself...I have used terms like brainwashing in posts referring to exempt engineers in industry...I have heard many a story from my industry exempt engineering friends that the PE is frowned upon and ridiculed openly in industry...discussions spurned on by management....I know this happens and it is evident in a lot of posts here....

My idea is to circumvent industry itself and make it easier to let PE's vouch for exempt engineers when they work together on projects or as character witnesses gained from professional organizations...most PE's are not against this, but you would be surprised as to the amount of industry opposition...industry does not want you to be a PE....That is the point I try to make over and over again....I have the PE and I absolutely positively know it would benefit you....

Where we all go with this is a strength of this site......it allows us to communicate and that is something that industry nor the engineering boards can stop....not everyone will agree with this, but hell, it has to start somewhere....

I have vouched for several industrial exempt PE candidates....It can be done.....

BobPE

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

(OP)
BobPE, I'm still not clear why requiring universal licensing would improve the lot of our profession.

License or not, you're still subject to the whims of your boss and your company, are you not? Sure, you can refuse to stamp a drawing because it doesn't meet your professional standards but I can refuse to do things that don't meet my standards. At the end of the day, my boss can still get rid of me for no reason ("at will", you know?), coerce me into working crazy hours ("exempt", you know?), and generally treat me like crap if he feels like it.

How would having my license protect me from that? Sure, it would let me go it on my own but I really don't want to "be my own boss."

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

binary:

right now there are laws on the books that require PE's to do things.  Back in the day, we engineers wrote the laws, to protect the public from bad engineering.

Only 2 to 5 percent of all engineers today are licensed...Can you imagine if that was 92 to 95 percent?  

Where we all go I am not sure, the book is still be written, but I will tell you, engineering is suffering...

If you company was required by law to only use engineers that were licensed, in my mind I would think they would treat you as more of an investment and less as a commodity, making closing engineering departments a more difficult decision.

If they did, then they would still need PE's from outside the company and you would just shift from them to another agency to do your same job for them.  It takes engineering decisions away from them, leaving them with us....Will this make things safer, in the long run.yes...An engineers say would be final as to the health and safety to the public, taking this decision away from the accountants, lawyers, and plant managers.....One could still loose their job like before, if they are a bad engineer it will show and "at will" should still be the contract we follow....If you are good and required by law, I think the opportunities are limitless...

I also think licensed engineers can and would have more power over the politics of protecting the public.  That power belongs to the engineers, and I think rightly so.

I dont have all the answers, but this is a much bigger picture topic...and finishing writing the book of the PE requires more PE's....

Take care.....

BobPE

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

My last post (some will be happy):
 Obviously there are some careers in engineering that some people dont understand. Namely, product design. There is no need to have a PE license when you have more safety agency approvals to go through than pencils on your desk. These agencies are in place to protect the public. They protect people and property from damage. These agencies, in the EE design world, are UL, CSA, CE (europe), and a several other agencies. Granted none of these marks are mandatory (except CE) but will greatly increase sales as most companies will not purchase electrical products without this stamp of safety. With that said, there is no benefit to having a PE license for a typical EE design engineer. I can not state it any plainer than that so if you can not understand this then I feel for you.
I am not against people getting a PE. Several careers would require the PE license. I have been checking into getting mine but have found since I have not worked under a PE for x years I have to take an alternate route through a state that requires zero years under a PE. I would be interested to see some stats on how many design engineers (EE) have a PE license.   

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

good luck going after your PE buzzp....You will find a way around the reference thing...Once you get it then maybe I can take your comments about not needing it.....

BobPE

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

Sorry if I offended anyone. My post was mostly for Binary’s benefit from the point of view of an employer. Some of the posts come across with an attitude.
Zdas and BobPE,
I Don’t have time or the need for any degree or license, my job is to design, build and market products. This requires a general knowledge, but I can am proficient with SolidWorks, Cosmos Works, operate manual machine tool, weld, do hydraulic, electrical and electronic assembly, program and operate CNC turning and milling equipment. I have 1 patent, and our company produces 40 different products for 6 different industries. Currently we have 4 R&D projects in the works.
My point was each person needs to move in the direction that fits them, not be shamed into pursuing a goal, or feel bad because of the current position.

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

EdDanzer:

I think I understand now.  PE's don't make anything, and if there were engineers out there that did, I don't think I would use them because I couldnt afford what they made...What we are talking about is a bit different.  Because engineers dont make anything, it is difficult for "other" peole to evaluate our performance.  The PE lets us rise above "other" people having judgement on our activities and places this responsibility on the state board that regulate our performance.

By "other" I mean managers, accountants, lawyers etc, that are not trained in engineering and have no understanding about what we must do by the fact that we are engineers.

I respect the fact that you know when you need to add professional engineers to your team to accomplish tasks.  Many out there do not know how to build these teams...

BobPE

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

BobPE(and any others who can help),

How is getting a PE going to help me as an Aerospace engineer? This is not a sarcastic question, it's just that you state that it will many times in this thread, so could you tell me why or point me to a thread or post that does?

Personally I think more laws should be added, requireing a PE or a technical person who is legally liable. Especially for "software engineering", when a software bug causes 100's of millions of dollars to crash into Mars, there should be someone to blame. I think this is going to be a bigger problem as we move into the "information age".

Sure this passes the onus onto the engineers, but who are we going to trust? The accountants?

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

BennyMic:

I don't know anyting about you so I dont know what you would want to do in the future.  The key is the future though.  It may not do anyhting for your current employer right now, but it will broaden your opportunities outside your employer.  For an example, you stay in Aerospace engineering and have the opportunity to consult your present employer at a much higher rate of pay for a multi year contract.  Without the PE you could not do this, legally I will add.  Who is to say what the future holds.  The worst thing that could happen if you get your license and decide it not to use it is you let it lapse.  You will still have it, not pay for it, but just be listed as inactive.  If you need it, you pay the dues and follow the process and reactivate it.  

Software programmers are a topic of discussion to see what to do with that profession when engineers are involved with it.  Non engineering programmers are just code writers, and the talk is that this is not engineering.  The information age will be a factor in the future however, it will not change the fundumental defination of an engineer, just the tools we have and the opportunities available for us to practice.

As for our poor martian probe crash, that was at the hands of a non-engineer converting metric units to english units.   Hmmmm, with no professional engineering oversight as I understand it.....

BobPE

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

Hmmmm, with no professional engineering oversight as I understand it.....

OH! SURELY a PE would have caught this!   Of course, we all know that PE's are really good at doing the work of technicians and those they hire.  

You make it sound as if PE's micromanage.  They don't.
You make it sound as if PE's don't ever make mistakes.  They do.

Dude, get off the high horse....  

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

rhoide:

I am not on a horse, it simply wont fit in my office...LOL

my words of wisdom that I live by are simple....

Its not that Im confident all engineers are right, its that Im confident all non-engineers are wrong (with respect to engineering)....

The mistake were talking about was made by a data entry clerk in an industry that is exempt....simple problem, costly outcome...again not a major concern since the public was not involved...but my tax dollars were, and I really want to know why a PE didnt have the ultimate say....why am I holding a data entry clerk responsible and liable for that huge waste of money, I want an engineer to be accountable....

PE's dont micromanage you are right....nothing would get done if they did.  Checking and reviewing is not micromanaging, not in my book anyway...

BobPE

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

My 2 cents worth,

I got my P.E. 30 years ago.  I never worked in the civil field.  Used my stamp only once when I did a floor loading calculation for a friend who owned a pub and wanted to use the upstairs for a pool room and needed the stamp on the permit application.  It probably helped having it on my resume early in my career, but other than that it has been totally useless.  I let it lapse several years ago because I got tired of paying the state each year.  Tougher laws are required if a license is to mean anything!

Timelord

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

(OP)
Here's a business opportunity for PE's:

Set up an evaluation program to provide references for poor saps who have the knowledge, experience, and desire for a license but lack the PE references.

Not sure how much I'd pay but it would be something...

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

All this bashing is making me ill. I hope no one thinks I am totally against a PE because Im not. I did graduate from the 3rd best engineering school in the nation when I graduated, yes it is fully accredited and all the big boys hire from the college I attended. Heck, even with the industry being the way it is, the big boys are still recruiting from the college I attended in a big way.
PE is not required nor should it be for every industry. It would be totally ridiculous.  

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

I agree timelord...we are having such a tough time with the laws since industries like microsoft insist on making systems certified engineers after a 6 week part time program.  There simply are not enough PE's out there to write the laws or influence politicans...That is why, as rhodie put it, I am on my horse...

Even though you didnt use your PE, I think you could say a door never closed for you because you did not have it....You may not have chose the path that needed it, but you could have....
BobPE

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

I think part of the problem in this issue is a misunderstanding between CE's and ME/EE's.  The CE field has a more well-defined hierarchy of position w.r.t. skill, education and experience.  The ME and EE industry fields are so broad that such distinctions can not be readily made across their entire fields.

Certainly, I believe anyone (CE, ME, EE) who wishes to peddle their engineering skill on the open market should be licensed.  A large part of this is to ensure the insurability of such individuals, to make sure they are competent to be held liable.  However, given the state of industry and education in the U.S., the industrial exemption makes sense.  The laws in most states protect employee/engineers from liability regardless of their PE status, so there is no point in licensing rank-and-file ME's and EE's.

As for the competence of non-PE engineers, no one has presented any evidence to prove or even suggest that licensed PE's are any more or less competent than non-licensed exempt engineers.  As for me, I am still waiting for one of my esteemed licensed counterparts to evaluate me and determine where I am deficient in my 20 years of experience, 7 years of education, and measured intelligence.

I may make you feel, but I can't make you think.

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

yikes buzzup and thetick, your horses are bigger than mine...LOL  w.r.t.??? nice...just nice...lets not start battling amongst the divisions now LOL...an engineer is an engineer...

Every engineering school is being recruited heavily...there are just not enough engneers out there in the work force and it seems that there are fewer and fewer graduates every year....


BobPE

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

What I meant was that there are clearer distinctions in CE for the roles of archtects, engineers, designers, and drafters.

I may make you feel, but I can't make you think.

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

i was just busting you thetick....this post is turning out to be a pretty good one just to talk back and forth....

BobPE

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

Thanks, Bob.  Just trying to be careful.  [a la Eric Burdon] "I'm just a man whose intentions are good.  Oh, Lord! Please don't let me be misunderstood."

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

OK,OK
    As an "Exempt Engineer" I guess you could call me that. I have spent 20+ years in the Navy classified by our U.S. Government as an Engineer. I am licensed in the State of Ohio as "Stationary Engineer". So I guess you in some circles you could call me an Engineer.
    But honestly, for some one to be hung up on licensed or not licensed, certified or not certified, it's all a matter of a persons vanity. I have worked with some exceptional PE's and learned volumes from them. Then others that couldn't engineer their way out of a paper sack.
     What it all boils down to is doing your homework thoroughly with honesty and integrity. Don't try to B.S. either your employer or customer. I personally perform system flow analysis studies for quite a few companies in the Northern Ohio Region. I never once lead the customer to beleve that I am more than I am qualified for. I always tell the customer that I can get them 95% to where they want to go, but don't have all the letters after my name and will have our PE look over all findings prior to filing my final report. In over 10 years in the private field of engineering, I have never had an unhappy customer over my analysis of systems or equipment.
    I have worked for companies that practice un-ethical practices in material substitutions, short cuts and exagerated repair quotations. All for the sake of the mighty margin. Note, I said worked. A person has to have personal integrity and pride in the service they provide their customers and their employers. Without this, your business may prosper for the short term, but you can only cut corners so long until you find your customers looking elsewhere for the quality and integrity they are paying for.
    Binary, get past the fact that you may not have the letters after your name, but that does not make you any less valuable as part of an Engineering Team. No single PE can tackle the types of problems facing todays customers. From system analysis, to system correction and repair, it takes all types of engineers to solve these problems. I am very proud to be providing my services to my employer and our customers. Be a part of a team, take pride in the support you provide, and be honest. Just as I respect the PE's in our team, they to respect me for the support that I and my personnel provide.

Clifford Sauer (Poppeye)MMCS(SW)USN Retired
                        Ohio Stationary Engineers
                        License #6569U

Well whata you know, I guess I do have letters after my name after all. But that does not make me anything more than what I know I am.

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

its not a matter of a persons vanity poppeye, if you think it is, then you really dont know what you are talking about....

BobPE

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

4
Or maybe he hit the nail on the head....

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

i think your right melone.....not everybody gets it, then again not everybody can.....

BobPE

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

Let's try not to equate disagreement, with inability to understand.  Just because we don't agree, doesn't mean I don't comprehend what you are trying to say.  Perhaps we have become bogged down by the particulars of this discusion.  Let's look at another example.  Does getting a pilot's licence make you a better engineer?  Of course not.

Let's look at the arguments for having a governing body for the engineering community:

1)  It will keep the knuckleheads out.  The only problem I can see with this argument is that the people that are likely to take the test, are the same people that you just graduated with.  That implies that they were "smart enough" to pass standardized tests in college / university with enough prep time / work.  Why would we expect them to fail this test?  

2)  The PE society can demand the respect that engineers deserve.  Who really cares if a bunch of people that you will never know respect you?  That is the empitome of vanity!  You EARN respect from the people you work with by being a productive member of the engineering community and workforce.

3)  The PE society can keep it's members on the straight and narrow with respect to engineering practices.  Get real!  Does anybody think that having a license keeps them from cutting corners?  How many times has someone broken the law while being a licensed driver?  (Be honest )  Does the licensed engineer have more to lose if s/he is careless?  Of course.  Should that be the reason they double / triple / quadruple check their work?  I hope not!

4)  The PE license provides flexibility for the future.  This is generally the best argument, since it is true.  However, I would venture to say that most engineers, (in the private sector, and not relating to public safety) would never need that type of flexibility.  Currently, I am in a area (digital design) that will never benefit from having a general license.  I might change product lines, engine controllers to consumer electronics, but I will never change specialties, say digital to power distribution.  While I think that I am more than capable intellectually, I know that I would never enjoy that field, and would therefore never enter it.  (Don't hate me power people.  I hate dealing with anything over 12VDC!)  Simply put, having the flexability to enter a field that I would never consider, has never been a good argument.  Why doesn't everybody get a license to drive a bus.  There will always be a need for bus drivers, and if the engineering thing slows down, you still have that opportunity.

Well, I will end my rambling.  Once again, please don't equate opposition with lack of understanding.  We can all disagree while looking at the same situation.

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

Melone,

Your point 3 was well said.  

Consider lawyers.  They are licensed, take a test that is, relatively speaking, significantly more difficult than the typical PE exam, and have a professional association whose power is probably only second to the AMA.  The ABA has the power to vet the president's nominations for appointed offices.

And yet...

TTFN

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

BobPE,
   Binary is obviously hung up over a title. That is vanity. A title does not make a person any better at what they do, than their capabilities or knowledge will allow them to function.
    To worry about what others think I am, would just get in the way with doing the job I am paid to do. It would also get in the way of being a cohesive Engineering group providing as service for our customers.
     If a person is not happy with their lot in life, or what they do, or what level of professional certification, or licensing, they have the sole power to change it.

Poppeye

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

poppeye:

YOu make some good points and I appreciate your comments.  A PE license is not a title, it is not given to someone by their employer, it is given by a state agency here in the US.  THere is a big difference.  The license has nothing to do with any societies like malone says, I am not sure he understands what a PE license is.  A license does not make a better engineer, but it does say to people that that engineer with a PE meet a certain set of criteria that is recogonized by state agencies.  Vanity is wanting a title, a PE is given to someone who takes the tests, wanting to take tests is not vanity.  The PE is not to make you look better in someone elses eyes..that is not the point at all.....I appreciate your open mind poppeye, I didnt mean to get you cought up in my conversation with malone...

melone


I work with several engineers, 20 plus years experience, engineering degrees, work experience in consulting, that have been taking the PE since they had 4 years experience.  They are great engineers, but cannot pass the test. That tells me something, what does it tell you? ITs a tough test so if you have not taken it, reserve comment on it.  Plus, its not a standardized test by the way.....when your job gets shipped overseas, I cant hire you to even put batteries in a project without a PE.  You may think limiting your flexibility as an engineer is a good thing, nut I would think a lot of other members would disagree.

IRstuff:

I have three friends with engineering degrees and who have passed the bar.  All three say that the PE was more difficult than the bar and that their engineering degree gave them superior tools to tkae the law degree and bar.  I am not sure where you got your information from on the bar.


I hope you dont all mind me chatting as a PE, a lot of PE's wouldn't even bother.  As a group, PE's are moving on, influencing laws on practice and geting far ahead of our counterparts in industry and government exempt status.  I like to remember that these engineers are here and in my ideal world, there is room for them in the ultimate realm of engineering that engineers can achieve.  A lot of PE's do not feel the same as I do by the way.  You can make a million excuses not to get a PE, but who are you really kidding?  I comment so often so that other engineers here can see their way clear to a good thing.    

BobPE

  

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)


I have been out of the discussions since I didn’t think that I would change any of the non-PE mind.  BobPE has been doing a good job in explaining the main reasons why our engineering profession required licensing.  At the same time, Melone still putting up a good discussion, especially his last thread.  I will try to address each of his point from my point of view.

1. “Why would we expect them to fail this test”.  Statistically, many engineers do fail the EIT and PE test, at least in their first attempt.   However, many and most do pass them second and subsequent times when they put an honest effort into it.  You may think the idea of passing some tests to obtain a license in general equate to noting more than having the right amount of luck and posses good testing skill.  Well, I would ask what licenses we hold in the US that do not required an individual to pass some form of test (from the simple driver license to a hunting license we need to hunt)?  Better yet, how else can an agency evaluate ones competence without some form of testing?  Do you have a better method to test an individual skill without testing?  I’m all ears.  Also, how many tests have you taken before graduating from your college for your EE degree?  Would it be possible, practical or even responsible for colleges to confer a degree to a degree candidate without ever testing him? I only can say that unless you obtained your BSEE without having to take a single test while in college, I don’t see your point of argument.  Oh, one more thing, how many of your college classmates known to have cheated in their exams?   I guess it’s OK and it’s not fair to say they will certainly become bad engineers but do we really want that in our profession if we are to be respected?

2. I agree, I really don’t care what others think of us engineers let alone if they respect us.  That is the point, having a PE doesn’t give an engineer instinct respect as this discussions have already proven.  Most of you think the PE license is meaningless, equate to vanity, doesn’t represent one’s competence, etc.  However, none really can give a concrete reason why engineers shouldn’t be licensed.  Having been in the electrical power industry for the passed 15 years, I honestly can say that been a PE does bring respect from other engineers (PE and non PE).  On the other hand, I also notice that, a PE will be more susceptible to scrutiny by his peers if he makes mistake on the job. It is almost certain and expected that his designs, calculations and drawings produced are error free (even though they may not be).  Come to think of it, isn’t this is all about; to ensure that the final design produced be as correct and safe as possible?  Believe me, stamping a drawing is a scary thing and most PE wouldn’t do it if they are not sure what they are stamping.  This is where I believe why licensure works, it is where the “rubber meets the road” and the final certification for correctness before construction.   

3. You are again correct, I have observed PE cut corners for all kind of reasons.  However, the fact that PE are regulated means that the behavior can be monitored by the State Boards.  Those who get caught can be penalized and punished.  It is similar to a driver can have their license revoke or suspended for DUI or reckless driving.  You can say “so what”, many offenders continue to break the laws but can you imagine the consequences if we don’t have the law in the first place?  

4. Well, last I heard, the electrical PE now offers electronic section.  Why not try it and hell, having a bus license isn’t all the bad especially with the current economic state.  Better yet, I see a lot of engineers going back to school for their law degree and make a run for their “Esq”.  What is wrong of having something extra under your belt?   I’m sure that you have taken your share of exams while in school, what difficult can two more be?  If you ask, what bother going after something you don’t need or use?  I can only say for the same reason why engineers going back to school for their MS degree.  How many of those really need a MS degree in their job but yet there is a whole industry tailored to make money off of those who are going after something “useless”.  There you have it, what is “useless”?  Engineers are strange breed of people, we are often going after something we don’t need because we love what we do.  In the process, we go after PE license, MS degree and there is absolutely nothing wrong with it.

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

(OP)
Poppeye:

I am not "hung up over a title." Some statements have been made by purported PE's that non-licensed people are not engineers nor are they professionals.

As someone who doesn't have a license but does have occasion to work with PE's, and perhaps be interviewed by them, I'm curious as to what the PE's view the role of the non-licensed person.

Understanding where someone's coming from is essential to effective communication and successful relationships.

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

1)  Any test is better than no test?

2)  My name is proudly displayed on EVERYTHING I work on, even if I am not the primary engineer.  If there are any questions, I feel that I should be contacted.  I was part of the design, and I should be held accountable.

3)  It is just sad that people can't be expected to do a good job, simply because it's what they are getting paid to do it.

4)  I don't think that I ever said that getting a PE was bad.  However, I have only a finite time on this earth, and will do whatever I can to maximize the time I have here.  Obtaining the PE license will yield nothing, while costing me time and money.

Also, I generally resist anything that is pushed as hard and fastly as the PE community has been pushing (forgive me, it smacks of the Nazi's when they came into power). Having the PE will not hurt you in any way, but it isn't the savior either.

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

melone:

who is pushing you to get a PE?  We will make it necessary for all engineers to have PE's, that is our goal.  A worthy goal I think.  If not the PE then what?  

You last statement is kinda funny because I equate industry that you work for as Nazi's in power, and the engineers working for it sheep following herd.  It's tough to shine the light in on you people in industry, but I try every chance I get becuase I see a bigger picture I guess....

BobPE

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

BobPe wrote:
"who is pushing you to get a PE?  We will make it necessary for all engineers to have PE's, that is our goal.  A worthy goal I think.  If not the PE then what?  "

I believe you answered your own question sir! Perhaps a worthy goal in YOUR eyes, but obviously not to millions of us Non-PE's.
Tell you what, how about we establish a Global PE License, after all, arent we a global community now? I think a worthy goal would be to assure all Engineers are above reproach, not just the US version. Now, for this Global PE, I would say, based upon its level of professionalism, you should have a minimum of a Doctorates, and at least 25 years of EIT, as well as a Mentor/Sponsor in at least 12 different countries that would vouch for you. After eaching this esteemed level in your career, we could then call you an Engineer, a GPE for short. Silly you say? I guess it all depends on who is defecating in your cornflakes as to the level of absurdity, just remember, someone thinks it a "worthy" goal.

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

patdaly:

it is a worthy goal in OUR eyes (there are a lot of PE's out there if you didn't notice).  We influence and right the state laws, if YOU are not involved by not being a PE, WE will make decisions for YOU....like it or not, I am telling you the deal....I like your idea of a global PE, I think that is a great goal, but it has to be approached one step at a time.  Maybe YOU will be out of the business by then and it wont affect YOU...

The grapes are not sour guys, just reach for them....

BobPE

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

BobPE,

I don't want this to degrade to a personal attack, but your statement about "if not a PE then what", is probably the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard.  How about requiring every engineer to get their pilot's license?  The crux of your argument is based on the premise that something (no matter how arbitrary) is better than nothing at all.  Would having the Nazi regimn in control be better than having no government?  Get real!

Also, please try to refrain from smug comments.  They do not help your argument, and are becoming offensive.  I enjoy a spirited debate, but telling me, and everybody else that doesn't agree with you, that we cannot see the big picture, and that we are sheep following the herd, indicates that you are less interested in changing peoples opinions, and more interested in slamming people.  I try to use analogies to test theories (if the theory holds at the extreme, then it is probably a pretty good theory), but I don't get that impression from your posts.  If I have misinterpreted your intentions, then please accept my most humble apologies!!!

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

I guess being a PE doesn't help the spelling skills any, does it, Bob?

(Cheap shot artist = rhodie)

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

melone:

I accept your apologies....LOL

BobPE

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

Bob,
As someone who (1) generally shares your view; and (2) is a licensed PE (hence has little reason to take personal offense to your comments) I have to agree with Melone.

You're not doing a lot to advance the agenda of, nor others' opinions of, your PE brethren.

I would encourage a little more diplomacy in your posts if you are actually intending to win over converts.
Brad

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

I think a consensus should be able to be reached by now. Let us see if everyone can agree with the following (if you can't agree on these by now after all of this discussion then this is a hopeless argument amongst those that choose to participate):
1. There are many engineering careers that do not require nor would benefit from obtaining a PE license (as the licensing procedure stands now)
2. A PE license MAY open up doors for future endeavors
3. An engineer without a PE license is still an engineer
4. An engineer without a PE can still be a highly respected engineer in their field
5. A PE license will likely improve your standing with other engineers outside of your present position (people that dont know you). But does this matter to you?

Can we all agree on the above?

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

I would agree with BUZZP's post.....

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

buzzp:

one thing I want to add, PE's are influencing and authoring laws that impact non PE practice of engineering.

BobPE

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

And I will go along with buzzp, one thing I wish to add is let us find a way to keep busybodies from ruining the advantage American industry has by employing the finest minds they can find, not the most degreed!

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

BobPE,
 There are also non PE's that influence the law as well. To think differently, is nonsense. I am sure you were not trying to say that only PE's in the engineering world have any influence on the law. If they did, we would all be required to have it by now :)
And who would influence the standards, etc, that us product design engineers have to follow? Likely, PhD's, MSEE, and EE's with experience and not just PE's because PE's in the product design world are extremely rare. I agree that PE's have some influence (questionable whether they actually author the law except for the occasional politician that happens to carry a PE) over the law that affects PE's (consultants) but have little influence over standards that a product design engineer uses in the design world. Our world is more influenced by experience and reputation of degreed engineers (PE or not).

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

(OP)
I dunno how much this adds to the dialog but our State Board of Engineering is half-populated by non-PE's and that's by charter.

I guess they're looking for as broad a perspective as possible.

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

To speak in a court of law on engineering, one needs to be a PE, but that is not what I am saying.  PE's are influencing laws that govern the practice of non-PE's.  Of course, non-PE's influence laws.  But the point I was trying to make was that PE's are striving to make the PE a benchmark for all engineers.  Now this may or may not impact members here or other engineers that are not members, but it will impact many.

I guess my goal here is to put writing on the wall, those who choose to read it, great, those that don't, great too.  

I have yet to read any good reason not to get a PE.  So I keep chugging along with this thread.

BobPE

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

Bob,
You are definitively wrong in the statement "...to speak in a court of law on engineering ...".  I know of several engineering expert witnesses who have testified under oath in civil cases who were not PE's.  

I have a personal acquaintance whose livelihood is entirely in the realm of expert witness and accident reconstruction. When I found he didn't have a PE, I was surprised. Apparently few people in his particular field of expert witnesses carry PE's.

Brad

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

yea bradh, that would be against the law, unless they stated they were not engineers and did not speak about engineering. I am not making a statement, I am just quoting law, so the law must be wrong? Read up on your specific state law, its there.  There is a difference in being an expert and being an engineer on the stand.  I have gone up against a few expert whitnesses in court, they get paid well, but have to stick to their realm of expertise which, if they are not a PE, is not engineering.  Physics, like in accident reconstruction, is not engineering, so technically, anyone can be an expert in it...It's a very strange set of laws...

BobPE

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

That's my point exactly--if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. I'll gladly trade my PE's salary for his "non-engineer" expert witness salary.  To say he cannot "speak in a court of law on engineering" is only arguing semantics, which I think is the whole point in this thread. To my understanding, people in the medical field without board-certification also routinely are expert witnesses in courts of law (even though they can't practice medicine).

When you make statements such as you have made above, there is an implication that one must hold a PE to be an engineering authority in a court of law--that is simply not true.  While it does keep one from saying "I'm Joe Blow, Professional Engineer" in many fields it does very little to effectively limit what one can do in a court of law.

I appreciate what the state law says, but the gray is so large in this regard that in many areas of practice it is a moot point.  This is the crux of this entire thread.  Your background seems to be fully situated in the civil/structures area, which is one in which PE seems to have a lot more leverage.

In automotive (and seemingly in many other branches), your truisms do not hold.  I'm not trying to ride you, and I hope it doesn't come off that way.  I'm just trying to delineate "the law" from "reality". (And I make this last statement with tongue firmly in cheek)

Finally, the person to whom I referred above does not practice in a single state (nor do others in his sub-sector).  His particular field of expertise is automotive accident reconstruction and engineering evaluation.  On most weeks, he spends some amount of time travelling to another state to either prepare or give testimony. He carries no PE in any state, yet is commonly called as an expert witness for major automobile civil cases. While few people know of him professionally, most engineers are probably familiar with many of the cases he's been involved in. I make that statement because this isn't some two-bit hack making a few bucks here--this is an area of 7-, 8- and 9-figure judgments, and many of the "expert witnesses" carry no engineering license. If he and his ilk were truly breaking the letter of the law, any lawyer on the opposite side would immediately nail them for a tactical advantage. This doesn't happen.

Heck, Clarence Ditlow--infamous expert witness affiliated with the Center for Auto Safety (he of NBC Exploding Trucks fame)--doesn't even have an engineering education, let alone a PE. Yet he routinely appears as an expert witness for plaintiffs.

Brad

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

" But the point I was trying to make was that PE's are striving to make the PE a benchmark for all engineers.  Now this may or may not impact members here or other engineers that are not members, but it will impact many."

 Ok, my final statement on this subject. We already have laws keeping non-PE's from doing structural work, I see the logic in that. But I also am an arrogant, Missouri show me American, that spent 5 years and way too much $$ to earn my BSME. I also have roughly 25 years left in my career, and sanctioning body or not, the government or not, I will remain an Engineer until I decide to retire. Pass your law, just be ready to pay my way in the slammer.

Have fun boys!

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

Somehow I doubt that the PE lobby can out-mu$cle the industry lobby, so don't sweat it.

There is more to this than just PE or non-PE.  Many companies do have standards for who is allowed to be titled "engineer".  Often, one must be a PE or have a degree from an accredited university for some positions.

Good and evil: wrap them up and disguise it as people.

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

TheTIck:

You are right, I am a moderate PE in the PE world, there are lots and lots of hardliner PE's that are tackling industry and I do not really agree with what the PE's are saying or doing.  As I stated before, I think a bridge has to be made to get exempt engineers on board, but my opinion is not sharred by many PE's.

bradh:  I dont know the first thing about structural engineering LOL...other than to get a structural engineer to figure it our.  Most of my clients are....industry...imagine that...

The problem with the courts is that a PE is the one who most of the time determines infractions to PE laws.  There are often times no PE's involved with a lot of engnieering cases, so no check or balance is available in many cases.  For someone illegally practicing engineering, like providing engineering testimony in court, a knowledgable person on PE law has to catch them.  This is, as you pointed out, often not the case.  I have had to point law out to judges, they didn't even know it...Most lawyers have no clue of the PE laws, the ones that do are very succesful.  The PE's are making progress in this area, but its considered after the fact of public safety by many and not a high priority.

I know you are not trying to ride me, it truly is an area that has been made gray like you said.  I just put it out there for discussion...

BobPE

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

I will preface this by saying that I am not yet a PE, although I am pursuing that path having first started down the road as an environemtnal scientist, but realizing along the way that licensing was the only true way to be considered a professional.  I also do not believe that unlicensed "engineers" know less than licensed engineers.  That being said, consider these points.....

A doctor is an engineer of biological processes and trouble shoots, identifies and "designs" solutions for those problems.  Yet, given two guys that went to the same school and got the same education, only the one with the license can practice medicine, and I'm sure that none of you here would go to the guy without the license for your medical needs, right?  

Also, the guy without the medical license that perhaps works for a pharmaceutical company doing research, has no job portability because the body of his work is under the ownership of the company that he works for, so if they move overseas he has to go with them, OR he has to GET HIS LICENSE to practice medicine.  

If all engineers needed to hold a license to practice, the field would be stronger and have more clout both inside and outside of industry.  Why do you think all lawyers need to pass the bar exam?(our corporate attorneys must have their licenses even though they rarely go to court.  We as engineers are the only profession that will fight amongst ourselves about the need for licensing to better the profession and increase our oppurtunities.  Why is that?

We are also the only profession that people solicit based upon who has the best prices.  Who in the world shops for the cheapest doctor or lawyer?

May I remind all of you that Doctors, lawyers and engineers all come from an apprenticeship based system of education, yet the engineers are the only ones that want to remain in the blue collar world.

If the license is just jumping through a hoop and just a piece of paper, then go get it - it can't be that hard.  If you haven't learned that life is a game and that you've got to play the game to succeed, then you're going to have a long, hard life.

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

I believe if a PE is going to be applied to a product design engineer, whether mechanical or electrical, they have a lot of work to do to write some tests. I do not know of any state offering a license in product design. Someone once told me that Colorado may have this. Does anyone know of any states offering license in product design?

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

Interesting point, buzzp.

I have a friend who is an engineering profeesor and PE that moonlights teaching PE test prep courses.  Most of his customers are companies that manufacture and design products.

One of his customers even has a mandate that all engineering positions be filled by a degreed engineer or certified PE.  On one test, nearly all of his students failed.  The reason was that the test was heavy on thermo and light on mechanics.  This did not go well for those taking the test that had not been to college.  If they had a test that focused more on their experience and core competencies, the students would have fared better.

Good and evil: wrap them up and disguise it as people.

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

TheTick:

I know you were talking to buzzp, but I wanted to chime in, as usual...lol

All engineers have been exposed to thermo and should be able to figure it out for an exam.  I think the ones you referenced would fit into a category like NICET, national institute for certification of engineering technicians.  This is a fledgling group started for those that can not get a PE in the PE world but have valued skills to offer and the skills must be benchmarked.  In my world..lol....those people would fit in NICET for industry...I dont think NICET is currently geared up for industry, but it could be....I like the idea of including everyone....

BobPE

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

Still, if you take a person who has 20 years of tribal knowledge in mechanical design, and teach him theory for thermo and for mechanics, which knowledge is that person going to better assimilate?  Which will give him a better comfort level (a definite advantage) on the test?

Good and evil: wrap them up and disguise it as people.

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

Without 32 plus weeks of calculas based thermo, they will not be able to make the PE easily.  With 20 years in practical experience, NICET would be achievable since its a testing agency that does not rely on college degrees and is based on experience...

This is kinda off the topic, but I get the feeling that the licensing system based on the PE with options for technicians may be a positive thing?  Believe me, there is more talk here about it between engineers non-engineers that there is among the PE societies....

BobPE

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

How does the saying go?  The first priority of a bureaucracy is to justify it's own existence...

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

The commentary about the PE being heavy on thermo and light on mechanics comes as a surprise to me.

I understand that the PE has changed a bit in recent years, but as I only sat for my exam 4.5 years back, I don't think my experience is too dated.

I chose NOT to study for thermo. For the EIT, one must have breadth of knowledge in all areas, including thermo.  For the PE, one can (or could when I took it) pick and choose what problems to do (but greater depth is required).  I passed the PE on the first try without solving any thermo or fluids problems (but I readily solved all 4 mechanics problems thrown my way). There were enough other categories that I didn't need to bother solving thermo.

Has the test changed in its format?

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

I am a degreed engineer. It sounds like the Tick is referring to something for the technicians to prove their value as an engineer. I still would like to know if the PE licensing in any state has one for product design engineer (I.E. NOT power generation, transmission, or distribution). Anyone else help? Or what other fields does the PE encompass for an electrical engineer besides power? Excuse my ignorance on this but I am curious.

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

Not in California.

Although, the law is sufficiently broad enough to encompass any EE that so much as sneezes at an electron:

"6731.5. Electrical engineering defined
(a) Electrical engineering is that branch of professional engineering described in Section 6734.1 that embraces studies or activities relating to the generation, transmission, and utilization of electrical energy, including the design of electrical, electronic, and magnetic circuits, and the technical control of their operation and of the design of electrical gear. It is concerned with the research, organizational, and economic aspects of the above."

TTFN

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

In Pensylvania the state board has taken a position that the use of the word "Engineer" in a job title is unlawful if the individual holding the job is not a licenced PE.

The following is the text of a letter I wrote to my State Senator regarding this issue:

It has recently come to my attention that the Pennsylvania State Registration Board for Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors and Geologists has taken a position regarding the use of the title “Engineer” that in my opinion is inconsistent with the provisions of the Engineer, Land Surveyor and Geologist Registration Law; Act 367 as Amended December 16, 1992.

The issue deals with the use of the word “Engineer” in a job title by a person who is not registered and licensed as a Professional Engineer in the State of Pennsylvania.
The Board has taken the position that it is unlawful for a person to use the word “Engineer” in a job title such as “Project Engineer” if the person is not a registered and licensed Professional Engineer, even though that person holds a recognized Bachelor of Science or Master of Science degree in Engineering from an accredited engineering school.

The Board appears to be basing their position on Act 367, Section 3, paragraphs (a) and (b).  These paragraphs do in fact prohibit the practice of engineering by individuals who are not licensed and registered to practice engineering in Pennsylvania.  Paragraph (b) states that “A person shall be construed to practice or offer to practice engineering…by verbal claim, sign, advertisement, letterhead, card, or in any other way represents himself to be an engineer…or through the use of some other title implies that he is an engineer…or that he is registered under this act…”

However, the Board does not appear to be giving proper consideration to Act 367, Section 5, paragraph (a), which clearly grants an exception to the requirements of Section 3 for certain cases.

Section 5 reads:  “Except as specifically provided in this section, this act shall not be construed to required licensure and registration in the following cases:

(a)    The practice of engineering…by any person who acts under the supervision of a professional engineer, … or by an employee of a person lawfully engaged in the practice of engineering…”

If, under Section 3, actions such as a “verbal claim, sign, advertisement, letterhead, card, or in any other way represents himself to be an engineer” are sufficient to be construed as the practice of engineering, then the contrary must apply in relation to Section 5.  That is, a person lawfully engaged in the practice of engineering under the conditions of Section 5 (a) must be able to make the claim that he is an “engineer”.

I respectfully ask you to investigate this matter, and should you agree with my opinion on this issue, to forward your opinion to the Board.

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

MintJulip:

I dont quite understand what your questions is.  Under section 5 of PA's laws, I am allowed to give engineering work to people working under me.  This does not mean they need to be engineers nor would allow others to imply that they are engineers.  It just means that they can perform engineering work for me as I see fit and they would not be breaking the law.

I think the part you are stretching in the laws is that that person doing work for me is not practicing engineering for themselves, but rather for the PE responsible.  There is a big difference.   I think that person would be able to say "I perform engineering for MR./Mrs. So and So, PE" but would not allow that person to say "Because I perform engineering work for Mr./Mrs. So and So, I am an engineer"

The laws are confusing I will admit, but they cannot be manipulated like that.  I would be interested to hear about the response you get from the board.

BobPE

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

I am still convinced a PE is worthless in some disciplines/careers. The laws on the books are written, for the most part, by politicians or lobbyists (PEs) that dont understand engineering or have their own agenda, respectively.

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

BobPE is clearly correct on this point.  I do not see any conflict in the Pennsylvania statutes.

BobPE also said in an earlier post:
The problem with the courts is that a PE is the one who most of the time determines infractions to PE laws.  There are often times no PE's involved with a lot of engnieering cases, so no check or balance is available in many cases.  For someone illegally practicing engineering, like providing engineering testimony in court, a knowledgable person on PE law has to catch them.  This is, as you pointed out, often not the case.  I have had to point law out to judges, they didn't even know it...Most lawyers have no clue of the PE laws, the ones that do are very succesful.  The PE's are making progress in this area, but its considered after the fact of public safety by many and not a high priority.

Again, he is dead-on correct.  I've caught out-of-state engineers practicing engineering in Texas without a license, and the lawyers who hired them were completely blindsided by their - and their experts' - mistake.  The out-of-state experts were in a difficult position: they either withdrew from the assignment, or faced felony criminal prosecution by the Attorney General of Texas.  (The violation was too flagrant for the AG to ignore.)  I understand their client settled the claim rather than have his experts testify under oath about their violation of Texas law...



Please see FAQ731-376  by VPL for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

lol buzzup, did we wake up on the wrong side of the bed today?  Worthless is a pretty lame word...You might try saying that not having a PE for certain disiplines will not affect that persons job.

But being an engineer is not a job, it is a career.  Having a PE has everything to do with your career.  But you are right, it may not have anything to do for a job.

The laws on the books are written by professional engineers to protect public health and safety.  They are pretty straight forward as far as most laws go.  There is no hidden agenda (with exception of industry wanting the exempt status to keep engineers as a commodity) and the people writing the laws have a complete understanding of engineering.

BobPE

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

I did not say this. I said 'career'. Do not put words in my typing (hehe).
"But you are right, it may not have anything to do for a job."

As far as engineering being a commodity. We are. To compare us to doctors and lawyers is generally not fair. Drs and lawyers go to college for a few more years (or longer) than your typical engineer. Why do you think PhD's have "Dr." in front of their name? If you do not want to be thought of as a commodity, then get your PhD.

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

So PE's know everything about engineering????

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

melone opined,
So PE's know everything about engineering????

No.  But to offer engineering services to the public - which specifically includes expert testimony - requires a professional license in the state in which the testimony will be provided.

The same applies to U.S. Federal courts - excepting that a P.E. from any of the 50 states is accepted when the dispute is located on Federal property.  Otherwise, the state laws still govern.  And Federal judges are a lot tougher on this issue (lack of an "appropriate" P.E. for someone testifying about engineering issues) for testifying experts than state judges -



Please see FAQ731-376  by VPL for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

I'll bet that I can give you just as many horror stories about PhDs as you can provide about PEs.  Actually, I have a lot of tales about both.  Ask me sometime about the bulkhead failure in the Port of Freeport, Texas about 10 or 12 years ago -


While I do believe that a P.E. should be required to offer engineering services to the public, I am not so naive as to think that everyone with a P.E. is competent - any more than I believe that all PhDs are competent.  I do believe that requiring a P.E. for those offering engineering services to the public is good public policy.  And I think the number of valid reasons for allowing the industrial exemptions to continue is diminishing, not increasing, with time.



Please see FAQ731-376  by VPL for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

LOL malone.....YES....dah....LOL (busting your ass I hope you realize....)

PE's write the laws....I don't think anyone really knows everything about engineering, but you know what, I would trust a PE before ANYONE else on engineering....

I have no problem with PhD's being PE or anyone else that can qualify for that matter.  mechmann, let me know what projects you don't have PE's working on so I can avoid them in life...LOL


buzzp:  I am not a commodity, I have my PE.  People demand my services and not everyone can render the services I can in return.  That makes me different than you as an engineer.  We can argue lawyers and doctors, I went to school with a few of them and what they learned in 4 years doesnt even begin to cover my freshman year in engineering school.  My doctor friends are actually engineering dropouts.....  I still think you should be the same as me insofar as being an engineer and I think industry exempt employeers should be required to seek engineering from PE's.  That way they cannot treat engineering as a commodity.  In saying that, I also think we need to create ways to overcome the boundries set up by industry to make their commodities into PE's.

I agree with Focht3, not every PE is competant, not every engineer is competent, not every PhD is competant.  

I do think that if we were to strenghten ourselves as engineers and use the PE as the benchmark as being an "engineer" we would all be better off for it.  If we don't, the industry exempt engineer will become extinct here in the US.  The PE will still be going strong though....


BobPE
BobPE

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

Ahem, PEs may write the laws (and, I imagine those writing them have both a PE & JD to get all the legal mumbo-jumbo aligned), but those laws have to be approved and enacted by our elected representative. And, we all know what kind of "training" our elected reps have in writing laws & adding or taking away info on a whim.

My doctor friends were enginering grads. The human body is a great work of engineering. A number of the engineering grads from my alma mater have gone on to med school because engineering provides a great foundation to build on for med school. I could have done so. I planned orginally to go to med school. I took the additional chemistry & biology courses required to apply for med school & by the time I finished my BSEE, I had decided I was too set in my ways to put up with the cr@p med school students have to tolerate while in med scool, then internship & residency.

We had SEAS shirts printed up one year that said the limit as the GPA approaches zero equals the Edwin Cox School of Business. Most of the business school students had no clue what that meant...and, many of them had higher GPAs than engineering students 'cause they got to take fluff instead of classes like digital signal processing...

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

lol leanne, I still have my T shirt....it said----the limit as an engineers GPA approaches zero = business ....LOL......

BobPE

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

BobPE:

You wrote:

"Under section 5 of PA's laws, I am allowed to give engineering work to people working under me.  This does not mean they need to be engineers nor would allow others to imply that they are engineers.  It just means that they can perform engineering work for me as I see fit and they would not be breaking the law."

This is correct.  However if you provided a business card to one of these people, and that card had the job title "junior engineer", or "associate engineer" etc., YOU would be in viloation of the PA board's interpretation of the PA law.

You also wrote:

"I think that person would be able to say 'I perform engineering for MR./Mrs. So and So, PE' "

Apparently not in eyes of the PA Board.  This would be construed as "holding ones self out to the public as an engineer", and would be a violation of the PA Board's (IMO incorrect interpretation) of the PA law.

And you further wrote:

"but would not allow that person to say "Because I perform engineering work for Mr./Mrs. So and So, I am an engineer"

Again, the PA board appears to make no distinction between "I do engineering work" and "I am an engineer".  They view both as a violation if you do not hold a PE.

The state senator that I sent my letter to responded that he agrees that the board's position is overly restrictive, however took no apparent further action.

For some PA law precidents:

http://www.pittsburghpe.org/Licensure/Garcia%20vs.%20Pa.pdf
http://www.acecpa.org/Info/February%20News.pdf

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

mintjulep:

I am still missing your point.  What I said holds true under PA law...I just dont understand your interpretations.

I would never give the title of engineer to anyone not holding a PE, in any state....I am not quite sure how you got that from what I said....

and finally the PA board makes a very clear distinction in people doing engineering work under the direction of a PE and what constitutes holding oneself out as an engineer, it was stated clearly in the PA laws you quoted.....

BobPE

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

Here in Texas, you can't use the term 'engineer' on business cards, correspondence or company propaganda, er, marketing materials, unless you are licensed.  Those unlicensed individuals who are working under the supervision of a P.E. and have begun the process of becoming licensed may add, "EIT" behind their name or otherwise indicate that they are an "Engineer in Training."

Even the phrase "Graduate Engineer" is unlawful.



Please see FAQ731-376  by VPL for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

I can not imagine these laws. Your not trying to say that if I work for XYZ Corp and I am an applications engineer, design engineer, field service engineer, standards engineer, or engineering manager that I can not have the term 'engineer' on my business card because I don't have a PE? I don't buy it. If it is on the books it must be open for interpretation and I would love to see a prosecuter take up that case.
Bobpe, you wrote "People demand my services and not everyone can render the services I can in return.  That makes me different than you as an engineer."
I agree that you can do some things I can't but there are some things that I can do that you can not and my dad can beat up your dad...   no seriously you can sign an official state, county, city, or federal document as being certified by an engineer. But would you sign a final schematic of a sophisticated product as being safe, functional, and reliable? These are the sorts of documents design engineers sign. A lot is riding on approval of the final drawings as in your case. Your signature makes you personally legally liable (as I understand it-correct me if I am wrong). My signature makes me personally liable. Sometimes I might get legally involved but very seldom will my personal finances come into play. I might lose my job or gain a bad reputation in the industry or amongst my peers. I understand your point and I am fairly sure your remark was not meant as a snide remark. I thought it was a worth while topic, signatures.
I think all good engineers want to do the best job they can and I would like to think the personal liability issue would not make me do a better job. My liability is losing my job which is of great economic concern as well.

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

I'm in a similar position and am not a PE or equivalent. I work for a company that employs 8000+ people in this country(Australia). There are exactly 2 people who can sign off on one particular safety related compulsory test before we deliver a product to the public.

I am one of those two.

I think the reality is that those industries that don't build and validate designs using prototypes need PEs, whereas the exempt industries tend to prototype. The difference is that with the exception of tests like the one above, which is too dangerous to perform physically, all of our calculations are effectively rechecked many times in real life before the public gets hold of the product.

Cheers

Greg Locock

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

BobPE:

I understand that you agree with the PA Board's interpretation of PA Law.

I do not.  

If I am allowed to do engineering work under the supervision of a PE, and have a degree in engineering, I should be allowed to say "I am and engineer".  If I do not have a PE I should NOT be allowed to say "I am a professional engineer."

PA law says:

You will be construed to practice engineering if you have a card that has the word "engineer" on it.

Only licenced people can practice engineering, except that an unlicenced person can practice engineering if they are working under the supervision of a PE.

However, the Board considers it a violation if an unlicenced person, working under the supervision of a PE uses the job tile of "engineer".

There is a clear contradiction here.  

If having a card that says "engineer" on it = being construed to practice engineering.

Then the contrapositive must also be true, that is

Lawfully practicing engineering must = being able to lawfully make the statement that you are an engineer.

Not a Licenced Engineer, not a Professional Engineer, but an engineer.

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

ok mintjulip, I think I see your point.  If you work under a PE, you are truly not doing engineering, the PE is and you are working for them.

My staff engineers have thier EIT's and their business cards just have their name on them.  My card just has my name, an PE after it, no title.  I guess I really missed what you were trying to say about titles...

I still think the laws are very clear unless you want to use the title engineer, and the law is preventing you.  In your case you are a graduste in engineering.  But look at another case, the high school degreed person that works for a PE doing "engineering" work.  This person would also want to use engineer, and by no way should they be allowed.  Being that you have an engineering degree, the title of engineer is within your reach, should you choose to reach for it.

This is what the laws are designed to protect the term from.  For the graduste in engineering, the steps are clearly laid out to achieve the status of "engineer."

BobPE

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

RobPE, please don't claim others work as your own....it really isn't very professional!  If someone else did the work and submitted it to you, you might have gained responsibility of it, but did NOT do the work!!!!

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

melone:  

You are not a PE are you...That is the way it works...All my engineers work for me, do MY work, and are under my license...I really have no choice nor do they in it being my work.  Having a PE is a complex complicated thing...difficult to understand....

BobPE

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

2
Focht - you said in Texas one cannot use the term engineer as non-PE.  But you can use it if you are in exempt role, as long as you don't try to sell services to the public...

Leanne has posted the link http://www.tbpe.state.tx.us/downloads/laws.htm

"Section 20. EXEMPTIONS....

.. This exemption includes the use of job titles and personnel classifications by such persons not in connection with any offer of engineering services to the public, providing that no name, title, or words are used which tend to convey the impression that an unlicensed person is offering engineering services to the public;"

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

Mother, "Hello Mrs. Smith, I want you to meet my son the electrical engineer."

Son, "Mom!  How many times do I have to tell you.  I'm not really an engineer."

If only for the mothers, we have to find something to call all these people.  How about, "I studied technical stuff for four years but, hey, don't listen to me."  Still working on something shorter.  Engineer has crept into the vernacular like "Kleenex", so common that it lost its protected status.  A state college gives you an engineering degree and the same state says you can't use the word engineer.  I have always been comfortable with the use of the terms Registered Professional Engineer, EIT and Engineer.  The only discussion I have encountered in my years prior to this was the use of the title engineer by those with less than a four year technical degree.  There was a purge in a company I worked for that re titled them as specialists twenty years ago.

I have had the title "engineer" on my business cards in many forms over the years and have never been in jail for it.  Most times it wasn't my option to pick the job title.  While the law may be on the books, the state by this time has effectively lost the ability to legally enforce it by ignoring the rampant misuse in areas that it hasn't traditionally policed.  Our Attorney General went after a car dealership that advertized a "used car factory."   Seems he thought people would be confused into thinking that a 67 Valiant with dents and rust was a brand new car.  A department like that out to have enough time to go after a few "engineers."

While some of these posts relate to sour grapes of ones station in life, it is a sad commentary that a technical field can't come up with a better standardized terminology.  Till then it will have to be engineer.

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

2
These PE debate threads are always very interesting to read since there are naturally a lot of different opinions.

My thought(s) is(are) the following; clearly there is much ambiguity among PE's and non PE's (both with some kind of engineering degree) about what constitutes an "engineer."  How can we reduce that ambiguity while at the same time holding public safety paramount?

It would appear the answer is to obtain some kind of license.  Let me put it in really basic terms in the form of an analogy...when you take a class in school, at some point you are required to demonstrate your competence in the subject matter.  You take a TEST, or usually several tests throughout the course.  If you do well on the tests you take (combined with homework and all of the other "tools" that are used by your prof/instructor to verify your competence of the subject matter to the specified level) you can honestly say, "I passed ‘The History of the Belly Shirt and Crimped Hair 101'."  No one can dispute that you have met the minimum criteria to understand the subject, because you successfully passed the course.

It really follows the natural order of life when you think about it.  Did you have to take a test in order to obtain your driving privileges, i.e. get a license?  Even though you already knew how to drive because your dad let you drive on rural roads before you had your license.

Did you not take countless exams throughout your high school and college careers in order to provide a basis to be promoted to the next set of challenges?  Is your chiropractor licensed?  Is your foot doctor licensed?  Is your lawyer licensed?  Is your real estate agent licensed?  Is your BARBER licensed for crying out loud??  Please note that any of these individuals may be good OR bad at what they do.  However, the least we can say is that they met the minimum requirements in order to provide those services to the public.

As you can see, many individuals you encounter every day are required to be licensed in order to provide their services to the public.  Why is it that in a career such as engineering, where public safety is supposedly so important and lots can go awry in any design project, are there some that feel that they should be exempt from a formal licensing process?  It really makes no sense if you approach the debate from a pragmatic point of view as I have just done.

Now if not having a PE doesn't seem to affect or impede your career, then don't get it.  Who cares if you're called a 'technician' or 'Engineering Assistant'?  It'll pay the same for you, right?  However, if you choose not to obtain a license, the system should mandate that you work under a PE or group of PE's-those who have not only demonstrated, but FORMALLY demonstrated those minimum requirements necessary to provide those services.  Just like my barber.

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

"I can clearly see that licensing of drivers have made such a big improvement in quality of my commute. "

No doubt a sarcastic comment from the context.  So if I understand you correctly, you think it would be better if there were no licensing process?  I'm sure those 7-year olds on the highway wouldn't pose any threat at all

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

Ha, Ha!  Allow me to restate that...

Fourth paragraph, second line,
substitute the word, knew with "knew" (in quotes)

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

So if I employ lawyers, I am a lawyer....how about janitors?  You are right, this is pretty difficult to undertand....all this common sense keeps getting in the way!

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

I should clarify my comment was directed towards IRStuff's July 8th post. Coming directly after your post, MRM, I can understand how you thought it was directed towards you.

Now to stir up the pot a little more!

Getting a PE surely is a matter of personal preference (at least for those that can get a reference).  There have been several excellent reasons articulated why some individuals night not want to pursue their PE:

1 - Some individuals have worked their whole career as an engineer but just can't find anyone legally qualified to publicly carry that title who is willing to vouch for their character and/or experience.

2 - Some lack any personal motivation to pursue licensure since it is not mandatory for their position/field.

3 – Some cannot pass the exam.  That doesn't apply to any of the un-PE's here of course who have all expressed confidence they could ace the exam.

To address #2, I have one question:

Let's say you are an employer in an exempt industry evaluating external job candidates. There are of course many factors more important than PE in that evaluation: education, experience, personality, attitude, people skills, etc.  But you know it is very tough to quantify many of those factors.

Education I believe is fairly tough to judge… different standard among schools… students have only to remember the material for 13 weeks or so.  Honestly haven't you ever met an engineer that graduated from a good engineering program but seemed to remembered very little.  I have met a few.

Experience… Do you want to rely on what the candidate tells you he did?  Wouldn't it be nice to have a minimum chunk of that experience verified by someone a little more objective.

People skills/personality- the person proves they can act friendly, team-oriented, and properly focused during a 4-hour interview… what does it really mean?

So now you have two candidates on all of these mushy factors come out roughly even. One has a PE and one is an un-PE. Which would you hire?  Think for a few seconds as you watch the picture:



(just stirring the pot… don't come down too hard on me).

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

OK, as someone who does interview external applicants, I'll take the bait.

I have NEVER asked whether someone is a member of a professional institution.

I usually ignore the referees.

If they are young I do check where they got their degree, what they specialised in, and what grade they got.

Then I ask them about the work they've done.

In another thread someone suggested I would be "the professor from Hell". I think I probably am the interviewer from Hell, on the other hand, I am rather proud of the people I have recruited.

Cheers

Greg Locock

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

Good comments Greg. I can't argue with someone who has done the hiring.

One thing I feel the need to explain a little bit. Some may notice that the three reasons above for not getting a PE are painted in an unfavorable light.  It is meant to suggest what goes through an employers mind when he considers why a person doesn't have a PE.

Glad Greg didn't take it in a bad way and hope others won't either.

Honestly I have nothing at stake in whether someone decides to get a PE or not.  Was just trying to provide an argument.  

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

I agree GregLocock, being a member of a professional institution has nothing to do with anything but taking your mosny, like ASME, ASHRE, or NSPE...But none of the institurions have anything to do with licensure.

What would you do in the case that electricpete posted?  I would hire the PE, hands down, and I would pay them more if they asked for it....

Just my thoughts...

BobPE

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

The biggest hurdle and I think the most unnecessary is the references. If that was done away with, yes I would ace the PE test.

However, I don't think a PE should ever be necessary to do design or analysis work. Why?  Because I believe it would stifle innovation. Anyone should be able to invent and market a product. As long as they or their corp. is willing to assume some reasonable liability.

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

I was an engineering manager in a previous company. PE or no PE would not make any difference in a candidate. If they had equal everything (extremely rare) then it would be a coin toss. However, I can not imagine total equality amongst candidates. I do not entirely agree with the reasons electricpete gave for no PE. I might agree with them as long as you add     4. Industry exempt positions

MRM, your argument is nothing new to these threads. Testing is good but whats wrong with the EIT (FE) test for so called licensing? What other tests that you compared PE too require four years of experience? As far as the exempt feeling they don't need a license, look at my other comments. Also, chiropractic is not a career that requires license in several states. I could go down today and hang a sign in the window for chiropractic services with no problems. No license required, no degree required, no experience required.

The ones arguing for a PE seem to be in the disciplines where it is required (almost) to get a good paying job, civil, structural, environmental, dah, dah, dah. As pointed out by someone else, the license procedure was started with these disciplines in mind, not electrical. Think how many electrical devices you use a day and how many different products, positions there are for electrical engineers. Now count on one hand the different positions for the above mentioned disciplines.   

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

buzz - You say if you had two equally qualified candidates except for the presence of PE, you would flip a coin. I find that an amazing comment.  You place no value in the fact that the fact that PE brings independetnly verified experience,  verified knowledge, and verified character?  You would prefer to go by what the candidate says he has done, what the candidate says he knows and what kind of guy he acts like during short interview?  The PE is one of the few substantial pieces of information that comes to you from a source other than the candidate himself/herself.  To ignore it would be foolhardy IMHO.

I don't agree to add number 4 to my list of reasons one would not have a PE.  Think of that employer in exempt industry evaluating those two candidates. Why does one of them not have a PE? One of those three reasons.

They are worded a little harshly to emphasize how they might be viewed in a negative light. Read the words I think you'll agree it has to be one of those three reasons... you just might not agree with the tone.

You deliberately choose not to take PE because for possibly legitimate reasons you believe it doesn't benefits you personally... that's #2.

You can't find references because there aren't any... that's #1.

I have worked in 3 different job in exempt industries over the course of 11 years.   I have never worked in a group that didn't have other PE's.... about 20% or more of the total engineer population.  So based on my own very limited personal experience, if someone told me they didn't have a PE because couldn't find  references, then I would be inclined to suspect they had some other reason for not getting PE like maybe they  can't pass the test.  I'm not saying that's the truth... but that is how it will look to some people.

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

You aren't presenting a zero sum scenario.

Presumably getting a PE requires some effort and some cost.

If so the other candidate will have done something with those resources. If he sat at home and watched TV I agree the PE is likely to come across better. If the non-PE went out and socialised with non-engineers or did something interesting then it is a coin toss as to who would interview better.

As I said in my previous post, when interviewing, I usually ignore referees, so a PE's references will get ignored. I ignore membership of professional bodies, so I won't even know that a candidate has one.

Cheers

Greg Locock

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

electricpete made some good arguments GregLocock, your arguments are pretty weak.  I can understand if you simply don't know anything about licensure, but then simply say that....

BobPE

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

so answer the argument instead of 'assessing' its strength.

Cheers

Greg Locock

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

(OP)
electricpete, why would you make such an assumption ("if someone told me they didn't have a PE because couldn't find  references, then I would be inclined to suspect they had some other reason for not getting PE like maybe they  can't pass the test") relying on your admittedly very limited experience?

To me, good engineers are very reluctant to draw broad conclusions based on scant data.

I maintain that a significant piece of why the profession is in disarray has been well-evidenced in this and related threads. There's a great deal of discord and "us and them" thinking within the profession.

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

Binary
Within my world (which is exempt BTW), there is no shortage of PE's for references.  

Therefore I wrote "So from my limited experience...."  

I closed with "I'm not saying that's the truth, but that is how it will look to some people"

There are many different points being made by different people. The one I was trying to make was only about appearances. Maybe it really is not worth my arguing any more, since it seems easily confused as an opinion that we can draw any legimiate conclusion by the fact that someone doesn't have a PE, which I never said.

Did anyone notice what the frog was typing?

Like your handle btw. I saw some one's and zero's at the end of a post and couldn't figure out the significance. Any special meaning?

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

(OP)
Electricpete, I was not challenging the "that's the truth, but that is how it will look to some people" part; I was challenging your personal viewpoint stated as "would be inclined to suspect ... maybe they  can't pass the test".

WRT the 1's and 0's, it has a bit of personal significance but is mostly meaningless...

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

OK, just for clarify, the whole paragraph:

"I have worked in 3 different job in exempt industries over the course of 11 years. I have never worked in a group that didn't have other PE's.... about 20% or more of the total engineer population. So based on my own very limited personal experience, if someone told me they didn't have a PE because couldn't find references, then I would be inclined to suspect they had some other reason for not getting PE like maybe they can't pass the test. I'm not saying that's the truth... but that is how it will look to some people."

I think there are enough clarifiers in there that I am not going out on a limb.
#1 - it is based upon my own limited experience.
#2 - I would be inclined to suspect.... notice I never said I would conclude!

There are enough weasel words in there to allow me to firmly say "I stand by my statement."
(where's my weasel gif when I need it?)

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

(OP)
electricpete, you're right - you did not say you would conclude. Nice use of the "weasel words" Way to stand firm.

Seriously, though, at least in my case, the combination of not working for PE's and the economy causing me to job hop, prevents me from taking the test. I'm pretty sure I could pass it but I can't find out.

I would encourage you to at hold your suspicions in abeyance until you've had the chance to ascertain for yourself whether the person in question could or couldn't pass the test.

From your posts, I suspect that's what you'd do anyway.

ps - Let me know when you find that weasel gif!!

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

Ack...gremlins stole some of my words I typed...

I did a search of the TX PE database. I searched by  employer (my current/past employers & my alma mater as an employer) & in my home town(s) to see if there were any I recognized names from church.

It turns out I actually know few PEs in Texas.

Two profs for one course each in college. Should I ask a prof to vouch for me on a PE app when he has no personal knowledge of my work experience & more than likely does not remember me considering the time that has passed?

Four that I've worked with or for (1 ME, 2 ChemE, 1 IE - I'm EE) & technically, should they validate my work?

The rest of them I see a few times/year - at funerals & family reunions. I won't even ask the validation question on this one....

I'm not just about finding RPE recs...Maybe after a year or so of active participation in here, some of you PEs will know of me well enough to write a rec

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

Leanne,
I would think the Prof's would not help much.  Use them only if you can't find anyone you worked with.

I would think the people who worked in your company would help, even if they did not work closely with you.  At least if they are familiar with your job title and the organization functional roles, they may have some limited ability to validate your SER.

Someone mentioned the boards may be flexible. But you still need to meet the minimum requirements for 3 PE's.  .  Since you have 4 to choose I would call to ask if they were willing and get a feeling which 3 are best willing to cooperate.  Once the process begins you will have to keep in contact with your chosen references anyway to make sure they follow the timetable.

Since the PE's haven't worked closely with you, it will help to get references from no-PE's who have worked very closely with you.

Binary
I was going to argue a little more to explain exactly what those words meant but it seems it would be counterproductive since I see you already let me off the hook.  But two things really need to be said: #1 - I am by no means talking about a specific person in the forum.  #2 -It is all part of a resonse to someone who suggested there is no value for a non-exempt getting a PE.  

I found that weasel gif but it's too big to post.

Nobody noticed what the frog is typing?

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

(OP)
electricpete, let me in on the frog. On my screen he's not typing at all, just sitting and staring at a blank screen.

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

PE flashes across the screen for about 457 milliseconds once every 5 seconds. But you have to watch carefully.  Or maybe that animated gif doesn't work with all software.

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

pete, I agree on the profs...I'm starting grad school next Spring from scratch again (it's been over 7 years so I lose 3 classes of Master's level coursework) after I take my CQE (12/03) & CQA (10/03) exams. Maybe I'll be able to cultivate the profs I once knew or some new prof contacts that would be willing to write a rec.

All four of the PEs I've worked with or for were many years ago. I'm going to approach them, but I'm not counting my chickens before they hatch either.

I can see what the frog's typing - it looks like he's writing "PET ME" but the computer gremlins did something with the last three letters

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

Aha!  I always thought it was peculiar that he would be typing PE. Your explanation makes a little more sense.

One more thing about the Texas PE search feature... the company names can be entered in a variety of ways. They took my employer's name and shortened it by removing a key word.  Others at the same company have the company name slightly different in the database. So one search does not reveal all the PE's at our company.  With little trial and error I was able to find the others (with the benefit of knowing the names I was looking for). I'm not sure if they have some kind of wild-card character to cope with names that don't match exactly.

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

Maybe it's true that most other professions do not require 4 years of experience before licensing, but the engineering field has the potential to cause the most harm, hands down.  Therefore, the four years is justified prior to becoming licensed.  To me it’s an absolute minimum and probably a little on the light side.  There is a lot of potential for bad things to happen both from a loss of life and an economic standpoint.  Look at the big power outage here a few days ago.  You can bet there was an economic loss.  Now granted the choices that led to the decision not to upgrade the system a while back may have been more of a management decision than an engineering mistake, but I think you get the point.

Why don't we just say that the EIT will "count" for being officially licensed?  For the same reasons I've already alluded to.  You typically take the EIT during your third or fourth year of college.  What did you know at that time?  I'll bet not as much as you know now!

I never realized that there were states that a chiropractor could practice unlicensed!  I would never want anyone without some proof of experience/knowledge to crack all my pesky neck vertebrators!!  It sounds like those are some states that need some license restructuring in those areas as well...

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

Greg and buzz.  

Imagine that chiropractor license is optional in your state.  Two competing chiropractors across the street from each other. You talk to the chiropractors and both seem cheerful and responsive and say they have been in business for 10 years. You talk to one or two clients each and no complaints. From the logic you have expressed above, I would assume that neither of you would pay any attention at all to the license, right?

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

BobPE

I am not a PE but I have been following this thread with GREAT interest. I would like to know what State, County, City, Township or whatever --- would have it's courts limited by laws restricting it's ability to subpoena any person it deems necessary. Please state the statute, law or court order creating this restriction on American courts. Please give exact wording or direct me to references.

ietech
 

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

It is considered practice of engineering and regulated under professional engineering law.

For the state of Texas:
http://www.tbpe.state.tx.us/downloads/laws.htm

'Section 2. DEFINITIONS. As used in this Act the term:
...
(4) "Practice of engineering" or "practice of professional engineering" shall mean any service or creative work, either public or private, the adequate performance of which requires engineering education, training or experience in the application of special knowledge or judgment of the mathematical, physical, or engineering sciences to such services or creative work.

To the extent the following services or types of creative work meet this definition, the term includes consultation, investigation, evaluation, analysis, planning, engineering for program management, providing an expert engineering opinion or testimony, engineering for testing or evaluating materials for construction and other engineering uses...'

I learned that reading eng-tips.

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

Boy I have missed alot since I've been gone. My point about a PE and non-PE interviewees was in reference to an exempt position. This is apples and oranges when comparing this to a chiropractic (spelling?).

I just have to disagree with your reasoning on this Electricpete (in reference to your comparison on PE vs Non-PE interviewees). The references on the engineers resume would hold way more weight than a piece of paper. Now if were talking a consulting company, then obviously a PE would be beneficial.

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

buzz - Apples and oranges?
Why is the chiropractor with optional license requirement different than the exempt engineer who has a choice whether to pursue licensing?

"The references on the engineers resume would hold way more weight than a piece of paper."
Right.  Just pick of the phone.  Companies are jumping for the opportunity to put themselves atr legal risk in order to give a bad recommendation for an ex-employee.

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

I was referring to your comparison of choosing a licensed chiro vs. non licensed chiro and licensed eng vs. non licensed. Apples and oranges.

As far as companies giving bad referrences, it happens all the time. How would the applicant know? Sure some cases he/she may but in most cases it is not going to happen. Managers pry all the time and get info out of tightly written policies. I know because I have done it. If you think a policy is going to stop this then your mistaken. Some cases it will but not all.  

You know in all of this discussion of PE and non-PE I am reaching the conclusion that some PE's are clueless when it comes to exempt positions and some are even more arrogant than Bill Clinton.

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

You have stated in response to my question regarding PE for an exempt position:
"PE or no PE would not make any difference in a candidate. If they had equal everything (extremely rare) then it would be a coin toss"

In attempt to explore this statement by posing the optionally-licensed chiropractor analogy, I get no response,  other than that you personally consider it apples and oranges.  I conclude you stand by your position.  I happen to disagree.   Given your most recent post, I am happy to agree to disagree and move on to more productive conversations.

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

Good.
Because no two candidates would have the exact same everything and there would be other indicators for the best qualified for the exempt position other than a PE vs non-PE. So I would not have to get out my trusty coin.

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

You have the last word, my friend.

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

Thanks. I never get the last word. We will see how long it lasts. Thanks to all for mostly good discussions. I have learned some.

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

Sorry buzzp; I've been out for a few days so couldn't acknowledge electricpete's (I think) great metaphor.

I agree with Pete's metaphor entirely. All else equal, and for the same price, an "official" chiropractor's license would win me over.  This is completely apples-to-apples with exempt positions for engineers.  

As soon as somebody says "all else equal", and adds that one candidate has one thing above the other, things are no longer equal.  Now if the PE salary demand is 25% higher than the non-PE's demand, suddenly this discrepancy must be weighed against the other discrepancy (PE vs. none).  But if they are the same in salary and every other way, can't we acknowledge that a PE has some intrinsic value (even in exempt)?? To suggest otherwise seems bizarre to me.

buzzp--I hope your comments as to PEs' arrogance were not directed at me; I've tried to appreciate both sets of arguments and coherently speak my view.  If I've insulted, my apologies. Frankly, I've seen people on both sides of this issue being less-than-civil, which is a shame.  I think we should all endeavor to disagree more civilly. Leave the character assassinations to lawyers and politicians (tongue-in-cheek, so nobody accuses me of lawyer-bashing).

(Note buzzp, that this statement is NOT directed against you, just a comment motivated by yours).

Brad

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

re electric pete's posting from Aug 10, 2003 about my Jul 8, 2003 posting:  

My comment refers to the plain simple fact that licenses, both drivers and doctors, for that matter, do not ensure excellence or even competence.

I would likewise ignore a PE license when interviewing, as I don't know how that relates to the ability to simple crank the numbers or truly engineer.  Similarly, a PE license tells me nothing about the ability of the applicant to think on their feet, see the big picture, be flexible, think outside the box, etc.

TTFN

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

(OP)
My belief is that licensing is more about accountability than evaluating competence - though the various professional exams do attempt to establish a minimum level of knowledge. Of course, knowledge does not guarantee competence; competence, though, does mandate knowledge.

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

Like this thread needs another post...

The only thing a PE does is to legally allow you to offer engineering services to the general public. That's it. Oh, and it also limits you abilty to use certain titles, if you offer you services to the public. I am in CA. The confusion between PE and non PE comes about in the Mechanical, Electrical, and other disciplines. The are the disciplines where there use is found more often in private industry than in public use. In terms of mechanical engineering, I would say that most of it has nothing to do with engineering in the public realm. The public stuff is pumps and HVAC.

Take Civil, Structural, and Geotechnical. Almost all of this engineering is for public projects, so a higher percentage are probably licenses (just a guess though).

This is why in California we are licensed under the consumer board of affairs like barbers.

So, to answer the originial post, I would rearrange your question to ask what is the role of PE's? Non licnesed engineers are what drive the engineering industry. Licensed engineers are the execption not the rule. That does vary however, with the discipline.

THe idea of expemption, I think that comes more from the process of gaining licensure more than anything else. The state realizes that unless you work for a consulting firm there are not going to be many PE's if any at a given business. I was the only degreed engineer when I started at my current job, and one of three people that even had a college degree. Most of my references were vendors of mine. 2 were PE's, 2 were not. Neither of the PE's even practiced. The state raised no questions about my references.

I have gotten grief from PE's before, but only because in my business (HVAC/R) you cross over into the public realm. I am the chief engineer, and I will be discussing something with and engineer (PE) and they will say I need to speak with a "real" engineer. That has happened only twice. Both of these guys were knuckleheads. THe more some guy starts waving his PE in you face the more likely it is that he is an idiot. Refer to BobPE talking about vanity. Good point there.

I got my PE becuase I have considered going into consulting on my own, and I am only a couple years out of school so going back over the material was not too hard. In fact, the whole affair was not really that difficult. I just figured, what the hell, it only cost $175 for the test and $150 for some reference books that I still use.


Clyde

RE: If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's)

No offense taken hear, bradh. I have nothing further to add at this point (until someone bashes exempts again, hehe).

Red Flag This Post

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

Red Flag Submitted

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

Reply To This Thread

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

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


Resources