×
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

Would required licensure be better for US engineers?
15

Would required licensure be better for US engineers?

Would required licensure be better for US engineers?

(OP)
I have heard the argument that if all engineers were required to get a PE (or comparable professional licensure), the profession would be better off.  I am interested to hear from engineers in countries where licensure is required (Canada, Europe, Australia, and others) to get some insight into this question.  Ideally, I’d like to hear from people who have practiced engineering in a country that requires licensure and the US (which does not).

Frankly, I’ve seen the US slammed in several posts for not requiring licensure.  I’m curious to know how much better things are for engineers in countries that require licensure.  I’m also curious to know how much better public safety is in countries that require licensure.

Haf

RE: Would required licensure be better for US engineers?

The down side of requiring a license is it will limit the number of people contributing to product design. Most products must be safe, but just because a licensed person stamped the design does not mean the design is good or safe.
Most innovations are by people who are not degreed or licensed in the field of the innovation, yet it may take degreed and licensed people to get these ideas to the public.

RE: Would required licensure be better for US engineers?

Licensure is not required in Australia for all engineers.

Mechanical engineering seems to be virtually unregulated in Oz, from a practical point of view. sc will know the score on the civil side.

Cheers

Greg Locock

RE: Would required licensure be better for US engineers?

EdDanzer,

Why will this limit the number of people contributing? Are you assuming that if licensing became required that people wouldn't meet the requirements or that people just wouldn't bother getting the license and move on to another field.



RE: Would required licensure be better for US engineers?

EdDanzer

"Most products must be safe, but just because a licensed person stamped the design does not mean the design is good or safe."

No it doesn't mean that it made the product safe.  It means that someone looked at it that meets the requirements to take a standard test....This means that not just anybod can review it.

The licensed person also has control of the whole design he stamped, so he is familiar with the entire project from conception to finish...I dont think its a bad thing to have a person like that look a project over...

You think that is a bad idea?  I just want to make sure I get what you are saying...

BobPE

RE: Would required licensure be better for US engineers?

I met some engineers that worked out of mexico (South America). I have no idea of the requirements in mexico as far as engineering goes but they were telling me that when you are an engineer there, people call you 'engineer ____'.
Much the same way as someone with a PhD is a 'Dr.' They are highly respected members of society. Perhaps someone here knows about the engineering environment in S.A.

RE: Would required licensure be better for US engineers?

2
My driver's license made me a better driver.

My fishing license made me a better fisherman.

I can't wait to see what magical imporovement happens when I get a PE license!

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

RE: Would required licensure be better for US engineers?

buzzp:

I have several engineer friends the came here from India.  Engineers there are held in higher regard than Dr.'s...They are very disappointed about how engineers are treated here...

I have no experience in S.A. with their engineers although I have done several projects there...I know their regulatory agencies like American PE's...

TheTick

It will be a glorious day when you get your PE, you will have to let us know how you feel after you get it and how we can help you to get more of your collegues to get theirs...

BobPE

RE: Would required licensure be better for US engineers?

(OP)
BobPE,

Is licensure required in India?  I would love to hear from your Indian engineer friends.  So far, there have been no real responses to my specific question above from engineers that have worked both in the US and in a country that requires licensure.  I am genuinely interested in this.  I am also interested in things like why your Indian friends moved from India to the US (there's a big difference if it is professional vs. personal).

Also, for the record, Mexico is in North America, not South.

Haf

RE: Would required licensure be better for US engineers?

Haf, Sorry I majored in Electrical Engineering not geography (typo-LOL).
BobPE, I will certainly let you know when I get it, if I do. I honestly dont see any benefit with my background but I may need it some day. I am not against the PE just thought those that say your not an engineer unless you have a PE are entirely wrong and are not familiar with the many career opportunities to engineers in general (ie, not all are consultants, not all hire out to the public, etc.) (not saying this is you either). You have heard me say this in several posts but what value do you see for a registered engineer in the electrical design world? I remember your example in some other post with a company outsourcing and several engineers (with the company that outsourced) were not allowed to work on the project. But whats to stop them from getting a different job with a different company as a design engineer? BTW, I am not in the 7% of unemployed EE's.


 

RE: Would required licensure be better for US engineers?

BobPE,
When we design a product and need a PE they can only make limited changes to the design. The reason for this is our customers need products that have several disciplines required to make a complete product. We do true collaborative design and design for manufacturability. There is no PE degree for machining and fabricating skills, yet people skilled in these trades can reduce the cost of manufacture by 50% if included in the basic design process. If a person has the skills of the PE’s I’ve hired, they don’t have the time or need to know the details of manufacturing and assembly, just keeping up on all the regulations in the US is a job in it’s self.

RE: Would required licensure be better for US engineers?

I got my PE and am really glad to have it.  There are restrictions on what an unlicensed engineer can do and that's good.  

I passed the PE in one try but to be honest a one day exam cannot pose real world problems.  Most of what I do is far more complicated and time consuming than anything I did on the PE.

On the other hand I have seen engineers who do not know the basics.  Some were licensed but most were not.  In an ideal world management would be able to recognize this but often they are too busy with other things.

RE: Would required licensure be better for US engineers?

Engineering licensure is for when engineering is being sold as a service to the public. There is no point to licensing every engineer because not every engineer sells his or her services to the public.

What is the point of getting a PE license have Boeing hire you as the left wing eleveator mounting bracket rivet engineer? That is what your degree is for. In situations like this, require PE licensure is superflous.

Having you PE means you passed a test. It doesn't mean you are good engineer.(I Not having a PE doesn't mean you are a bad engineer. I have met plenty of knucleheads either way. But to protect the public, the government sets minimum standars (measured by an exam) that an engineer must meet. Having your contractor's license is the same thing. You can have your license but do lousy work.

I am a PE by the way, but work for a manufacturer, not a consulting firm. Am I a better engineer? Not really. Only in the sense that I can broaden my engineering experience by working as a consulting engineer, and do it legally. It won't help at all for this  heat exchanger mixing thingy I am working on for homebrewed beer. It doesn't help me or my employer to make a better machine. It helps me sell more when I try to meet with a PE and try to get him to spec my stuff.

CLyde

RE: Would required licensure be better for US engineers?

If an engineering school in the USA can show that its students meet certain standards, then that school is accredited by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET).  Roughly 330 schools in the USA now have this accreditation.  Many companies consider an engineering  or Engineering Technology degree to be real only if it comes from one of these schools.

While Civil Engineering and utility work typically require final signature by a licensed engineer, not many other engineering jobs in the USA require a license.  In aerospace, for example, the license is not considered important and it is hard to see how it would make the engineers any better or any more respected.  

India is a special case, and their engineering graduates deserve considerable respect.  Their educational standards are very demanding.  IIT and the state technical universities of India are highly respected worldwide.  In my experience, Indian engineers tend to be more comfortable with analytical engineering than design engineering, but that isn't necessarily an intrinsic difference and it is certainly no fault.  Their contributions to the art and practice of engineering have been great.

The best analytical engineer I ever worked with was an Indian with no engineering license, and the best designer was an American with no engineering degree or license.  The most prolific and successful aircraft engineering department in the world has 1,000 people, but only a handful are licensed engineers.

My father used to administer the professional engineers licensing exams in his region.  It was a worthy effort and it seemed important, especially with all the projects that required licensed engineers.  But I never needed it.  It just depends on what type of engineering you want to do.




RE: Would required licensure be better for US engineers?

3
Personally I'm tired of hearing all this stuff about whether or not Engineers should be REQUIRED to get licensed.  I think it's a crock and it should be dropped.

Lets break it down (although I'm only speaking about ME's since that's what I'm most familiar with) ... today a good ME Degree program can take anywhere between 4 and 5 years.  Now if you go to a reputable college or university you should be getting a very good education.  Now unless things have changed since I’ve graduated, the studying, testing, and design projects required for graduating (not to mention the work you get involved in if you get tagged by a professor working on a side project for some company or government) is, in my opinion, more than enough to qualify you as a Mechanical Engineer.

If you decide that after a few years working in the field that a BS isn’t enough and you go to graduate school and earn a Masters Degree in some specialized field of ME then so be it.  A Master degree not enough, you then go for a PhD.  But whoa … wait a minute, there’s something else now, a PE !!!  Where will it stop ???  What will be next … Super Professional Engineer ???

I worked with one gentleman who was at the time the Mechanical Engineering Manager of a medical device company in the Boston, MA area.  Probably THE smartest guy I’ve ever worked with or ever will work with.  He’s designed probably half the company’s product line.  What’s his degree in … Earth Sciences !!!  Do you think the company he works for is going to require him to get his PE or think about letting him go because someone comes along and applies for a position there ???  I think NOT.

So in my opinion, if you want to become a PE, then fine go ahead, but if not, then so be it as well.  But I don’t think it should be a requirement for any position.  As other people have said before me, I’ve seen really intelligent engineers both degreed and not, and I’ve seen idiots who have degrees up the kazoo.

But that’s just my opinion …

Brian Mazejka

RE: Would required licensure be better for US engineers?

Star to cheeseburger and other 2 previous posts.

RE: Would required licensure be better for US engineers?

(OP)
While I agree with Cheeseburger and Miper, I must say that no one has really answered the original question posed in this thread.

The reason I started this thread was because I was tired of hearing about how licensure should be required for all engineers, and how we would be better off if universal licensure was required.  Only theoretical arguments were offered to back up these viewpoints.  Being more of an experimental guy myself, I challenged someone to give specific examples of how engineers (or public safety) in countries that require licensure (are there others besides Canada?) are better off.

Personally, I think the US system (PE required for some things, not for others) works just fine.  I also think that engineers in the US are as well-respected and well-compensated as engineers in other countries (perhaps even more so).

Haf

RE: Would required licensure be better for US engineers?


The issue of eliminating the industrial exemption and requiring all engineers to get a PE is a topic that draws out strong opinions from many individuals. I myself am somewhat neutral on the subject. Both sides on this issue bring up many good points.

Most of the engineers that I have met, by nature want to do a good, professional job. Unfortunately, I have also had the displeasure of meeting some that were unethical. I have also met others who used the title "engineer" falsely. These particular people either didn't have licenses or accredited degrees. Others had no degree from anywhere.

This can be considered food for thought.

EddyC

RE: Would required licensure be better for US engineers?

2
I have worked on overseas projects most of my time and offer my angle into the thread.

It is a fact of life that there a lot of engineers without professional qualification who are excellent technically.  Many of them are so good that they feel no necessity to prove themselves.  And equally many professional qualified engineers do not measured up to the standard worthy of our respect.  

Some European countries do engineering in a 5-year academic course in university and their graduates enjoy a status similar to architects and Doctors who also have to do similar length courses.  Mexico engineers could follow the same scheme.  I follow a British system and did a 3-year course.  To become a chartered engineer I need at least another three years practical experience, sit for examination, attend interview and pass before qualified.  In comparison to the other European engineers we appear less academically minded (for having two years less theoretical study) but more practical.  In dealing with European engineers my experience is the British engineers come out just about equal.  I am fortunate in a way that I also did a Ph D and therefore always taking a keen interest to learn from other fellow professionals.

The licensing aspect of the engineering profession is not universally enforced and should not be taken as a guarantee for good engineering as many of us already stated.  What I have found in my experience is that an engineer can only improve if he or she is given responsibility match the professional development.  In this respect a licensed engineer is exposed an environment of more responsibility than one without a similar qualification.  Over a period of time we can expect a licensed engineer could become more experienced in making important decisions as he is, should I say, more legally suitable for being sued for his mistakes.  He will not last long if he is not careful with every decision and design he makes professionally.

I work normally as an European engineer outside Europe and it is sad to see many engineers from other countries, qualified to the same academic level but playing a relatively small part in the project for also a small reward.  I do not believe I am better than them but the clients prefer me because I have done it before. The engineers playing a small part can the same opportunity to get involved but they don't want to take up the responsibility as they consider their pay doesn't warrant the risk. So over the years I do discover the licensing aspect can make an engineer more experienced, force him to learn more and faster, trained to make the right judgment under pressure and come out a better engineer overall simply because the exposure to responsibility.  Being put on the spot and relying on only one's engineering knowledge and skill to come out alive is a very important quality needed by every engineer.

In conclusion my message is that a professional qualification is not a guarantee for a good engineer but if the engineer is good he should be able to handle the deep end, which is the licensed position.

RE: Would required licensure be better for US engineers?

2
Most anti mandatory license posts that come from US engineers revolve on two main themes.

I know some idiots who are licensed.

Or

My industry does not require licensing so why should I get it?

As to the first, yes there are some idiots with engineering licenses out there. There are also some idiots with driver’s licenses out there but that does not stop anyone from driving. Just because the process allowed someone who you feel is un-qualified to become an engineer, why should that stop you from proving that you are at least as qualified as they are.

If your industry does not require licensing, then why not? What is it about some industries that make them less of a risk to public health and safety than others? A badly designed baby carriage can kill just as a badly designed building can collapse and kill someone.

Some industries have qualifications that are said to be harder to get than a PE and more relevant to being an engineer in that industry than the PE process. My response to that is why not make that qualification (plus academic and experience requirements) a sufficient condition to becoming a PE?

This does not mean that the US path to becoming licensed is a good one and cannot be improved. Under the US system, performance on two one day exams, one of which is open book and both are multiple guess format, is the main gateway to entry to the profession.

Exams are a bad gateway for two reasons. Firstly it is impossible to simulate the range of actual practices and procedures that exist in a real professional engineering job. The questions that I have seen are of the type of how much water will flow in this pipe. The real question is to first determine how much water you need to be able to drain, examine the use and application and then pick the material and size and slope necessary to do this with full regard for safety, economy and durability.

Secondly the exams have trouble keeping current with the vast range of engineering. The electrical exams have been said to be mostly generation and power transmission related. This does not adequately test the knowledge of someone who is an electronic designer.

I am Canadian. We have mandatory licensing. If you are not a P.Eng than you cannot legally call yourself an engineer nor can you practice engineering. There is no industrial exemption.

In the US any idiot can call himself an engineer. Anyone wonder why the profession is not as highly thought of in the US as is the case elsewhere?



Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng

Construction Project Management
From conception to completion
www.kitsonengineering.com

RE: Would required licensure be better for US engineers?

I can't speak for how highly the engineering profession is regarded in the US compared to other countries because I haven't actually experienced the differences, if any;  and I would guess that not many commenters here have, either.  In any case, I have never been given cause to think of myself as being considered less of a professional than anyone else.

Granted, engineers here do not enjoy the higher salaries of dentists or medical doctors, who have highly restrictive medical school entry exams and formalized schemes for extended training requirements, all of which limit the number of graduates so as to assure high salaries more than anything else.  That seems to be the real professional advantage that doctors and dentists have --- restrictive entry exams, which reduce the supply of doctors and dentists, which increases their income, which in turn engenders a form of respect.

Now consider, for example that a dentist’s work consists almost entirely of being a cross between a mechanic and a small parts grinder.  A surgeon, regarded by many as next to godliness, is little more than an eyeball mechanic and a sloppy tailor who relies on nature to clean up the rough edges of his work.  Internists can order dozens of lab tests and order expensive pills after problems get serious, but they usually can’t prevent much of anything.  The medical profession thrives on heroics, not prevention.

Suppose we severely restricted the number of engineers, so that all we had time to do was firedrills to patch problems; and we set ourselves up like doctors – avoiding the design and preventive phases --- and make our services available only after something goes wrong – the bridge breaks, or the airplane crashes -- would we get more respect?   Read carefully – the answer is, unbelievably, yes(!), at least in this hypothetical framework.  Is it ethical?  Of course not;  but remember how the highly respected medical profession works.  Is that ethical then?

So why are we less respected for busting our buns to design and provide good things for the world?   Once again, I can only conclude that it all comes down to exclusivity, an air of superiority, and money.  So I will concentrate on these within the context of the original question about licensing.

Today’s practice of licensing engineers does not accomplish anything to make engineers superior, because almost nobody is denied a license after they’ve already spent an exorbitant amount on college tuition. In other words, the tests are largely a formality.  Sure, they weed out a few, but darned few.

Today’s practice of licensing engineers does nothing to make the profession more exclusive because, as mentioned above, licenses come after the degree and do nothing to limit the input of engineering students.  Meanwhile, the engineering colleges do all they can to increase the number of students, including the lowering of their standards, despite ABET.

Today’s practice of licensing engineers does not cover all types of engineering.  Until all practicing engineers of all types are required by law to undergo a medical doctor-like entry exam and training process in order to be certified to practice in the state, companies will keep flagging down people off the highway and call them engineers.

So, if the logic is to improve the profession and/or its image by licensing, then the license needs to be made mandatory by the laws of every state; and the exam must be moved to the front of the engineering education process.  The exam has to come first, and it has to be hard enough to eliminate at least half of the applicants.  Otherwise, it fails to accomplish the goals.

It is difficult to see how such a thing could be implemented. Opposition would be fierce.  The engineering schools would fight it, because they would lose most of their students.  Half of them would probably close.  Companies would fight it because they would have to pay more for engineers.  Or would they just outsource to countries where the supposedly more highly respected engineers earn a fraction of the salaries in the USA and queue up at the US embassies for the chance to relocate here?

It gets to be a complicated thing to change.

Your turn.....  

RE: Would required licensure be better for US engineers?

"In the US any idiot can call himself an engineer. Anyone wonder why the profession is not as highly thought of in the US as is the case elsewhere?"

Not exactly the case, for in most states, non-licensed Engineers cannot identify themselves as such. In my state, Illinois, I cannot even use the term Engineering in the name of my company.

Tell you what, without starting a flame war here, just how many of the great advances of humanity were created by a P.E.? Given the typical P.E.'s reluctance to push the boundries, would Man be currently flying?

My point is, the US system appears to me, an optimal system of checks and balances, that is, not artifically increasing the cost of consumer goods or smothering innovation, without letting us mere mortal unlicensed Engineers design structures that might collapse.

Corgum- excellent post, cuts straight to the heart!

RE: Would required licensure be better for US engineers?

Mandatory license requirements in the US would NOT help engineering at all. It is fine the way it is.

It is NOT illegal for an engineer to call himself an engineer if he does not have a PE. It is illegal for him/her to use engineer in the company name. If you tell me it is illegal then you are very confused because every engineers business card I have seen, PE or not, has engineer in their title. Now if I hand these out to the public trying to get some consulting business, yes its illegal.

RE: Would required licensure be better for US engineers?

"In the US any idiot can call himself an engineer. Anyone wonder why the profession is not as highly thought of in the US as is the case elsewhere?"

Not relevant.  Americans have historically been less than respectful of intellectuals, engineers and scientists.  While engineering accomplishments have been admired and praised, engineers have never been considered to be relevant to the average man.

"Yankee ingenuity" has, for more than 200 yrs, been a slam meaning unsophisticated country folk outsmarting or our-engineering the professionals.  This comes directly from the colonization of America by what would now be considered religious fundamentalists.  While the religious aspects have diminished somewhat, the anti-intellectual aspect remains strong.


As for the rest of the world, let's not forget that Alfred Nobel did not consider engineering to be worthy enough for awarding a Nobel Prize

TTFN

RE: Would required licensure be better for US engineers?

Engineering is not comparable to Doctors or Dentists(?) because of the length of time they go to college. To be a Doc requires a minimum of 6 years (think its actually 8). Now if you have your PhD (most engineers don't) then it is a fair comparison.

RE: Would required licensure be better for US engineers?


patdaly,
Thank you.  You make some good points, yourself.

IRstuff,
It may be a good thing that there is no Nobel Prize for Engineering, given they have awarded their Peace Prize to a terrorist thug.  I imagine they might award an Engineering Prize to Al Gore for inventing the Internet.  

Any other suggestions for an Engineering No Bell Prize anyone?  Nothing serious, please.  By rights, it should be in a new thread.

RE: Would required licensure be better for US engineers?

I have been to foreign countries where Engineer is a title.  This was more visible in the mid-east than Mexico where I am now.  Construction mechanics or other craft technicians may be PROMOTED to the title of field engineer in some countries.  The title engineer is not always an indication that a person has an engineering degree.

Some states require a professional engineering license to use the title engineer for the individual or business on any communication such as business card unless registered.  This limits those who can be called an engineer.  Typically, someone without a degree cannot become registered.  Thus, this provides differentiation at least within the states that enforce such rules.  The requirements to become registered do not necessarily include an engineering degree.  Most states require passing the fundamentals of engineering and principles and practices examinations.  The principles and practices examinations include safety issues.  Some states have assorted exemptions.

The skill level and safety aspect is wide open.  Much of what many engineers do pertains to codes, standards, material selection, installation design, etc. and little calculation beyond expenses.  One can refresh and learn new information while studying for the exams.  A related topic is continuing education requirements after becoming licensed.  PE registration fees are among some state general revenue.

I have mixed feelings on the requirements.  I too have met registered engineers who were not very good.  Some may practice outside their expertise.  Some do not know anything about ethics.  I only became registered after my state of residence enacted strong engineering title and examination restrictions.

Take the fundamentals of engineering exam while still in school or as soon as possible after out of school.  This is a broad exam.  The principles and practices exam concentrates on the industry practices, codes, and such issues that you actually work with on a regular basis.  Step up to the plate and get registered – or don’t.

John

RE: Would required licensure be better for US engineers?

Corgum - In addition to being recognized for inventing the Internet, Al Gore is famous for his work on digital music. Who can forget the famous algorithm.

HAZOP at www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

RE: Would required licensure be better for US engineers?

I see it in some ways similar to a cab license in a large city. It implies certain MIMIMUM standards that are important only for POLITICAL and SAFETY reasons. It does not imply any maximum level of performance or innovation. It does increase cost to society both through the selection process minimising supply and added beurocratic burdons. When the state budgets run short, professionals such as registered engineers are often taxed with special fees. If registration were completely eliminated, then minimum safety standards would be lost. If registration were universal, then innovation would suffer and costs would go up. Competition would be lost. The system we have now in the US is pretty good but there needs to be a better distinction between engineering that needs to insure mimimum standards are met and engineering for innovation. As is often stated, anyone can call themselves engineers. Many, particularly some registered engineers, find this problematic. Unregistered engineers cannot call themselves PE. In my opinion, that is all that is needed and PEs should be proud of that distinction. I find efforts toward universal registration anticompetitive, very short sighted, and smelling as bad as lawyers advertizing for accident victims.
As far as ethics are concerned, the most ethically challenged engineers I have worked with have all been registered. The registration seems to eliminate the need to earn trust.
As for helping engineering in general, what is needed is a professional organization that seems to really care about the people in the profession. Engineers are more at the mercy of corporate greed than other professions. Univeral registration or unionization look to be as effective as bandaids on cancer in the long run.

RE: Would required licensure be better for US engineers?

Heydave,

I am a "victim" of corporate greed.  Actually, it's corporate spinelessness.  I am a PE and the company I work for no longer puts "PE" on business cards for registered engineers.  This is a result of being turned into the state board for using the term "engineer" for anyone with a degree.  In Texas (where I work and am registered), only registered engineers may use the term "engineer", as I understand it.  So our management decided to call everyone with a degree and no license "technical professional".  And If you have a license, you get "Registered Professional Engineer" in tiny letters under your name.  I don't know anything more now than I did before I was registered.  But I did endure the process and am liable for anything I stamp.  I don't make more money than other engineers that are not registered.  And I, like many others, know engineers without PE that are brilliant.  They don't want it, don't need it, and that's fine.  

On another topic, Texas will soon implement continuing education for registered engineers.  Depending how the board implements this, I think is long overdue.  

RE: Would required licensure be better for US engineers?

I would welcome a restricted use of term "engineer".  Here in UK it is loosely use by everybody.

The guy comes to fix the central heating is called an engineer and so is the guy who install the telephone socket.  The washing machine was deliveried by an engineer. Some trade unions refer to their members as engineers. Also the gas company sends out engineer to read our gas meters to prepare the bills.

Engineer is called "Ingenieur" in Europe and it is a protected term with a similar standing to Architect and Doctor.

RE: Would required licensure be better for US engineers?

I have a reverse story of DarthDick

I was working in a section of a company, where my manager and I had a disagreement, I stuck to my guns,  promotion time came and went several times and no promotion.  
Got my PE, and company policy kicked in, all PE's are E3 or E4, by getting the PE I got a double promotion.
Permanent plant shutdown came soon after, I was in the first half to go, not unexpected.

Hydrae

RE: Would required licensure be better for US engineers?

Bbird and IRstuff

You guys know what you are talking about.

The PE is to show people who are engineers.  In US and Britian anybody can call themselves engineers and it is hard to respect the term engineer when everyone is an somethingengineer. (sanitation engineer, coffee engineer, etc)  Only if you have a degree from a "recognized", "certified" university can you register to be a PE in Canada.

I agree that there are smart people with skills to design stuff but years in your garage or at a technical school is not the same as an engineering degree.  People with engineering degrees are engineers and people without engineers degrees should not be called engineers.  They are free to call themselves designers or any other word they wish to use.  That is the reason for the PE.  In countries were this is true engineers are highly respected.  In countries were the garbage man is an engineer, it maybe isn't so respected.

With regards to the original question:

If I had to pick a designer for a complex design and had to choose between a certified PE that was certain to have completed his degree at a proper university or a generic engineer with no proof that he had done anything but apply for a job with engineer in the title.  Then I'm afraid I would pick the PE and maybe the design would be better and safer and maybe it wouldn't but at least you know.

QCE

RE: Would required licensure be better for US engineers?

We look at the $ or £ signs, the thing dearest to our heart, then answer to the post has to be an absolute "yes".

I don't know how exactly the PE system is covered in the North American continent but if everything works as it supposes to be then a licensed engineer will be deemed to have an adequate insurance covering his professional work, either arranged himself or by his emplyer .  An unlicensed engineer can carry out work for a client but I doubt very much if his work is adequately covered by the professional indemnity provision.  

In an event of a law suit against professional misconduct it is pretty clear to everybody that the client, in choosing an unlicensed engineer in preference to an licensed professional, has accepted a quality of work dissimilar to if not lower than the common standard of the industry.

Also the insurance industry is unlikely to provide an identical arrangement for licensed and unlicensed engineer as the latter must carry a higher degree of risk.


RE: Would required licensure be better for US engineers?

buzzp wote

"Engineering is not comparable to Doctors or Dentists(?) because of the length of time they go to college. To be a Doc requires a minimum of 6 years (think its actually 8). Now if you have your PhD (most engineers don't) then it is a fair comparison."

Why not?  To obtain your PE you have to go to college for 4-5 years, pass the EIT and then work in the engineering field for a min of 5 years.  This is just like a doctor who goes to school for 4 years (undergrad) then goes to medical school for a few more (residency) practiing his trade.  He is then allowed to take his exams (Boards) to be certified as a doctor.  Strictly speaking it takes 10 years to become a Licensed Engineer while only 6-8 to become a doctor.

The same goes for lawyers.

Yet the tern "engineer' get's thrown around like anyone could do it.  Do I sounds pissed off?  Yes I am.  I worked my butt off to be an a damn good engineer.  I earned the title.  Now any idiot with an AS degree and apply for a job and become a Designer Engineer.  Bull.  He's a designer.  Let's be honest.  maybe a great designer but a designer none the less.

Everyone always states "I know a lot of super smart guys with no degrees".  Great, that's what makes this world a wonderful place.  Of course the opposite is true to.  I have worked with a a few degreed engineers who are menance to anyone who comes near anything they built.

Sean Dotson, PE
Inventor Tutorials & More
www.sdotson.com

RE: Would required licensure be better for US engineers?

I dont believe either of us know what it takes to be a doctor but I can't imagine that I could (undergrad) be a doctor in as little as two years (already went four for undergrad). I can study law or medicine for two years, including my residency for a doctor, and be licensed. I just don't think this is the case.
To get a PE only takes nine years in common cases unless your undergrad was on the five year plan. In any case, I still do not acknowledge the comparisons between docs, lawyers, and engineers. I still believe that an engineer is one who holds a minimum of a BS degree from an accredited instiution, PE or not.

RE: Would required licensure be better for US engineers?

I don't agree with the view that purpose of the PE (P.Eng for me in Canada) is to limit admittance to the profession only to those who have a high enough level of knowledge/competence to conduct professional engineering.  In my opinion the real power of the PE and demanding it is to regulate the profession on an ongoing basis.  Lets not confuse the question in the post about mandatory regulation with a mandatory exam!  If the exam process is not working, lets change it!  Mandatory regulation provides future regulatory ability.  

Several people have posted to this forum at one time or another with stories of very good non-degreed engineer and very bad degreed engineers.  There will always be those people, and I will not try to refute those experiences, but I did want to bring up this sidebar.  That discussion brings up what the requirements are to become a P.Eng.  In Canada you can get a Licence (and hence be entitled to call yourself a P.Eng) without a degree by demonstrating a suitable level of experience (see http://www.peo.on.ca/ and follow the "licensing and registration" menu to limited licences.  The licences are limited because of the specific application of experience.  If the person leaves that situation and starts in another situation, they need to apply for another licence for that situation).  Each case is reviewed by a board and evaluated on it's own facts.  

In the Canadian system you can have non-P.Eng employees doing design, but have a P.Eng "signing-off" (taking responsibility in one form or another which may or may not include using their seal" the final design.  There are two simple fundamental concepts that makes this system superior.  First, there is a measure of accountability in the system.  That P.Eng puts themselves on the line when authorizing a design.  

Secondly and perhaps more powerfully, that P.Eng has the support of the law behind them when they decide that something is not suitable to expose the public to.  If their employer decides that they don't like that and decide to try to get around it, there is protection build in to prevent that.  (Including grounds for wrongful dismissal if they are turfed for something like that)  You can argue that the tort system in the US and fear of "going to the press" will deter that, but those both exist equally in Canada, this just provides better grounds for the Engineer because they are already supported by the law.   

So yes, I think that the US should adopt a mandatory licensure system.  I think it would serve to empower the Professional Engineers in the country and raise the status of the profession.

RE: Would required licensure be better for US engineers?

Buzzp,

4 years undergrad + 4-5 years medical school plus residency = 8-9 years for a MD.

4 years undergrad + 5 years OTJ training = 9 years for a PE

Still not sure why you don't see them as being equal.

I'm certinaly not saying that a engineer (with no PE) with 10 years experience is an idiot.  Far from it.

Let me ask you this however?  Would you allow a person who had had 10 years working in a Dr's office but with no formal MD work on you?  Of course not and the law forbids the person from practicing medicine.  You might however let them take your temperature or blood pressure etc..

This is the same reason we have PEs.  They have proven (the same way a MD does when he takes his Boards) that he knows what he's doing.  This is espicially important when the public safety is at risk.

Sean Dotson, PE
Inventor Tutorials & More
www.sdotson.com

RE: Would required licensure be better for US engineers?

I normally would not answer that because I do not liking the comparison but to humor you: I would likely let the unlicensed doc diagnose me, as long as he made it through med school and had his diploma hanging on the wall.

BTW, I think there should be more years on the Dr since the residency is not accounted for. Who knows what the time involved is? I don't but always thought about 10-12 years by the time they are done.

dporte17,
 Am I understanding Canadas ways correctly that if I work for a company as a design engineer designing products for say consumers (to sell in Walmart, radio shack, etc), that I have to have my work signed by a PE?

"There are two simple fundamental concepts that makes this system superior.  First, there is a measure of accountability in the system.  That P.Eng puts themselves on the line when authorizing a design."

The same thing goes in the states this is why they have insurance. On your second note (not duplicated here), there are plenty of other ways to shut down a bad design, contact the customer, etc. There is whistleblower protection in the states if you wish to go the route around your employer.
I do not buy either of your arguments.   

RE: Would required licensure be better for US engineers?

Buzzp,

May I inject an consideration here?  

Structural engineers are often involved in design and implementation of works affecting the public safety.  They have to carry professional insurances to cover any mistake and wrongdoing.  This responsibility can force a PE to take a strong stance if he considers his design is being compromised through no fault of his own.

An electrical engineer may not share the same experience, especially if he works on products for a manufacturer.  If the goods is faulty the product could be banned but the manufacturer is seldom sued, let alone his employee, the electrical engineer.

Some folks have to treat the formal qualifications like PE and licensing aspect more serious than the others.

If a PE stamps the design he will have to shoulder the responsibility and we expect him to check the design to his satisfaction.

Also if a PE makes a serious mistake by bringing his profession into disrepute we expect his licence will be withdrawn.

Different diciplines of engineers can have different ideas on PE.  I can understand, say for an electronic engineer working on telecommunication or computer, will not have much to do with or influenced by the PE title.  

However if your own house were among a group of buildings just levelled off after a minor earthquake you may want to know what proof the designer has got to show that he was qualified to design your property.  You can sue an unlicensed engineer and bankrupt him but you still lose the house.  If the PE were the designer you can get the house back through his insurance in a successful law suit.

RE: Would required licensure be better for US engineers?

buzzp:

"Am I understanding Canadas ways correctly that if I work for a company as a design engineer designing products for say consumers (to sell in Walmart, radio shack, etc), that I have to have my work signed by a PE?"

To be precise, the Law in Ontario (although similar, each Province is unique) states that anyone performing engineering must be licenced or have their work supervised by a licenced engineer.  They then define engineering as:
["practice of professional engineering" means any act of designing, composing, evaluating, advising, reporting, directing or supervising wherein the safeguarding of life, health, property or the public welfare is concerned and that requires the application of engineering principles, but does not include practising as a natural scientist; ("exercice de la profession d'ingénieur")] Professional Engineers Act, R.S.O 1990, Section 1 - Definitions.

So yes, if that product that they are designing can endanger the life, health, property or the public welfare.  The only problem that we have is when the products have the engineering done elsewhere.  A very good example of this is the Canadian auto industry.  We build and sell cars that are engineered by non-licenced engineers, but if that design is modified when in production by someone in Canada (like a plant based design engineer) that engineering work must be supervised by a licenced engineer or else there is a violation of the law.  

"The same thing goes in the states this is why they have insurance. On your second note (not duplicated here), there are plenty of other ways to shut down a bad design, contact the customer, etc. There is whistleblower protection in the states if you wish to go the route around your employer."

Yes there is whistleblower protection in the states, but it is not as strong as the Canadian system due to the lack of the mandatory licence.  For example, if a company doubts an engineer's (call him EngA) decision in Canada, they can get the work reviewed by another engineer (EngB) to get them to approve it, but that second person is bound by a strickly enforced code of ethics.  Say EngA is right.  So EngB reviews this and approves it.  EngA then reports EngB for misconduct and he is disciplined.  
In the US, if EngC (non-licenced, but degreed and qualified for the job) reviews this and approves it, then the company can rightfully claim that they have pursued due diligence and had another qualified person review and approve the design because they are covered by and industrial exemption, even if the second person is wrong!  So EngA can then use the whisleblower laws, and in the end a non-technical court will judge if EngA was right.
 
What if it isn't so clean cut.  What if it was a judgement call of going with a 1.4 or a 1.6 factor of safety on something like then front end of a car at the cost of a several million dollars?  Would it affect someone's life?  If you made 3,000,000 of those cars it very well might!  If you were EngA would you have more confidence going up against your employer in such a situation if you were going to be judged by a group of people who appreciate what a 1.4 factor of safety represents or a court of non-technical people?  I know what sort of backing I would like to have.

Dave

RE: Would required licensure be better for US engineers?

Without wishing to inflame an old wound, perhaps the difference between industry exempt industries, and the rest, is that we build prototypes and test them exhaustively. This gives us several (typically three major) iterations to get the design right.

Also:

Supposing you are designing a 1 litre engined econobox car. Market research has indicated that you would attain class leadership for safety with a 3 star NCAP rating. For this you would need an airbag, but not side bags or anything very sophisticated. However, it is obvious that fitting these additional known technologies would make the car safer, and would bring it up to the safety standard of other larger cars.

How would the stamping PE comply with his code of ethics (problem: we are going to sell a car that is less safe /by design/ than other cars), when the safer car will be much more expensive than others in its class and so probably won't be bought in sufficient quantities to be profitable?

Cheers

Greg Locock

RE: Would required licensure be better for US engineers?

dporte17,

I enjoy reading your definition of Engineering Act.  Since it has some French in it I take it might have an European connection.  Yes I can confirm that definition is pretty accurate for the folks at this side of the river.

On the matter of safety factor there may be a loop hole in your industry.  In structural engineering the safety factors are published by the code.  A design deviating from the code effectively exposes the engineer to criticism.  If an engineer follow the code and the design proves inadequate then the profession is criticised but the engineer is exonerated as he is adhering to the published and accepted good engineering practice.

Different countries can use different safety factors.  This is controlled by stating in the contract the relevant codes and the latest edition at time of the contract awarded.

I can see in the automobile industry this can break down.  Everybody knows that Volvo sells on the safety factor higher than the others.  Cheap foreign cars can corner the market by cutting back cost with lower safety factor in compliance with law only at the source of manufacture.

RE: Would required licensure be better for US engineers?

My company uses the term technical professional instead of engineer.  However, unlike DarthDick, the company includes the letters PE on business cards, etc. if we send a copy of our current packet registration card to the department secretary when we order cards.

Presetnly I work offshore, have no Texas office and carry no cards.  In my autosignature I sign my email John Summerfield, PE

John

RE: Would required licensure be better for US engineers?

"Since it has some French in it I take it might have an European connection."

Of course, since everyone in Canada sits around in igloo's speaking only in English.

RE: Would required licensure be better for US engineers?

Hi QCE:

I think BBirds comment was meant in a friendly way, at least that's the way I saw it. I also enjoyed deporte17's post and came to the same conclusion.

 Learning about differences in licensing requirements from different geographic locations is interesting and possibly valuable to some folks.

Actually aren't there more igloos in the US i.e. Alaska. Where some of the folks speak English and MANY don't.

RE: Would required licensure be better for US engineers?

QCE,

When I mean European connection I mean education system leading to the title of "Ingenieur" which is a 5-year academic studies practised by most of the European countries including France.  American and British do a shorter engineering course and the engineers do not enjoy the similar standing as the Ingenieur even though the two are in the same profession but in different countries.  

RE: Would required licensure be better for US engineers?

It was meant to be a funny way of saying that we speak French here in Canada.  I could make the same statement,

"Since it has some English in it I take it might have an European connection."

However my spell check does have an "American English" and no "Canadian French".

What I'm trying to say is that it is not a European connection thing.  It is that we translate everything into both of our national languages because we are bilingual.

RE: Would required licensure be better for US engineers?

I appologize for missing the humor in your post, I get it now.

Yes you are right there is a tremendous French influence in parts of Canada  -- Ontario I think --- am I correct. It must be great to speak two laguages fluently. I'm envious

RE: Would required licensure be better for US engineers?

Bbird,

Not sure where you are coming from with the statement that the Ingenieur in France is more highly regarded. There is equivalence between Chartered status in the UK and EurIng status in the rest of Europe.

Regards, HM

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

RE: Would required licensure be better for US engineers?

I think he means in a day to day fashion. I would say that engineers in Australia are more highly respected by the establishment and by the general populace than they are in the UK, for example.


Cheers

Greg Locock

RE: Would required licensure be better for US engineers?

HamishMcTavish,

UK engineers consider the chartered status is equivalent to the EutIng and can certainly apply to become one.  However Europeans look upon an Ingenieur more of a learned person and many are addressed as Ingenieur Giovanni instead of Mr. Giovanne. They are called Ingenieur on the day graduating from the university.

In UK the word engineer is not be used as an official title.  The frequent use of the 4-letter word by our site engineers is not conducive to the image of a learned person either.  May be our engineering professions have to blame for insisting on being practical before qualifying us as a chartered engineer.

I am luck in a sense that my work leads me into contact with engineers from various countries.  While the qualification and title are not a sure indication to the person's skill and ability the engineering profession is indeed treated differently by in different countries.

Japanese produces excellent engineers in all disciplines of engineering but licensing aspect is non-existent.  They  also care less about the formal qualification.  Any Japanese colleague care to enlighten us here?

RE: Would required licensure be better for US engineers?

In South America they use Engineer in place of Mr. Mrs. Miss as well.

RE: Would required licensure be better for US engineers?

What an interesting post - for lots of reasons.  As to Americans who think that Canadians sit in igloos and speaking only English - well, at least we do not carry out snow skis on our car up to Ontario in June/July!! Seriously, from first hand experience, Canada has other languages too - Inuit and that hard one on the ears "Newfie".

Do engineers really need to be licensed?  First, I suppose that in US/Canada the major reason we, who have the license and are in the field of providing consulting/construction/designing to the public do it because it is mandatory .  I have no problem with that - it is like other licenses (I am PE in ME and P.Eng. in Ontario).  But, for those who think that it helps in status, think again.  Canada Passport applications overseas will not allow a professional engineer sign as a guarantor - but they will allow a banker or a mayor of a town.  We don't really get the public respect because we do not really demand it, in my view.  Those in the early posts are correct that engineers in other countries are in the top 3 or so of the most respected jobs.  Who do the young girls want to marry?  Engineers/Doctors.  Indonesian engineers use Eng. in front of their name like many European countries do.  Some are very good engineers - many are not qualified for it.  I ran into one who ran a soils lab and didn't even know the theory of consolidation. Likewise with the Indian IITs.  They produce some mighty fine analytical engineers but most do not gain any practicality in their studies - gratefully, many do as they practice.  (As an aside - many students use Harvard, Yale, Cornell as a fall-back university when they can't get into an IIT - I live in the same town as IIT-Kharagpur).

On the other hand, many have expounded that many of the great inventions are by non-engineers.  They are right - but many of the great inventions were at a time that industry and the public weren't so heavily regulated.  In looking at the original thought that Terzaghi, Peck, Casagrandes, others gave to geotechnical engineering - I'm not so sure that they could do it now with all the regulation that there is - the world of codes and specifications.  Things have changed and I don't think that regulations promote innovative thinking - to the degree that could be produced earlier.)

In the long run, if licensed (or registered) professional engineers, by use of the PE/PEng, can use this to upgrade the profession in the eyes of the real public, then it will be good.  But, it isn't absolutely necessary to do engineering work in all fields unless the end-product is proven for the safety of the public and in this, a PE/PEng review of the work (take the Boeing example) should be paramount.  But the public needs to recognize this - most don't.

  (what a ramble, I know!)

RE: Would required licensure be better for US engineers?

I am a civil/structural PE who works mainly in the industrial sector where I interface with mechanical and electrical types.

The following is not an indictment, just an observation.

One point that I haven't see raised in this discussion is the sense of "freedom" that non PE engineers have. Over my twenty five year career I have seen many non PE, non accredited degree, designer types use the excuse that "they're not the engineer" when problems with their designs arise. That to me is the real crux of the problem. PE's feel bound by law to take responsibilty for their work, non PE's have a built in excuse when things go wrong.

Personally I blame the bean counters for this state of affairs. Why hire a PE when there's a less expensive designer (my term), who knows how to operate the CAD, or an analysis program, that's willing to draw up plans beyound their ability to do so.

As a example. Just recently I was in a discussion with a mechanical design engineer who had drawn up a set of plans for a fairly elaborate equipment skid. When I questioned him about the lifting lugs, his response was, "If there's a problem, it's not my fault. I'm not the engineer".

RE: Would required licensure be better for US engineers?

Steve1
You hit on something which is an assumption; "that's willing to draw up plans beyound their ability to do so." So any designer/engineer/whatever without a PE can not do the quality of work that a PE can do? Hogwash.

RE: Would required licensure be better for US engineers?

Steve1 hits one of the messages from the PE boards.  If a job requires a stamp, supervise the work.  Do not stamp work not performed under your supervision.  If a stamp is required, the engineer who perfoms the work should stamp her own work; or have the document checked by the PE.

Where a stamp is required it makes sense that the lead engineer, engineering manager or department manager requires PE registration.  I was a department supervisor without a license when Texas strengthened the requirements in 1992.  If you want to be a supervisor get licensed.

John Summerfield, PE
Texas 80134

RE: Would required licensure be better for US engineers?

3
The whole issue of occupational licensing raises my ire.  

First, I believe that most professional occupations that require licensing result in limiting the number of people in the profession and thus protect inflated salaries.  This results in people in our society having fewer and more expensive choices when professional consultation is required.   If a profession requires some threshold test to pass in order to become licensed, then the test should be an accurate means to test the competency of the people in the profession and those wanting to enter the profession.  This is not the case with the PE exam in the United States.  If passing the test demonstrates the minimum relevant skills required by the profession, there would not be a need to see how people performed on the test to determine what the criteria is to pass the test (they curve the test scores).   

I am a licensed professional engineer that is angered with the testing requirements for the PE license.  For that mater, all professional exams that are gate keepers to a profession make me angry.  This is not sour grapes; I take test and score much better than my knowledge or IQ merits.  Both EIT and PE exams were passed first time and with scores to brag about; however, I am not proud because the scoring was curved.  If the exam was indeed a test of minimum required knowledge, curving the results would be unthinkable.

So, in order to ensure that a the ability to pass a test is a measure of the minimum skill required for a given profession, why not have the professionals take the exam every few years to keep their professional license in addition to taking it in the first place to first get their license.  This would work for doctors, lawyers, engineers, teachers, etc.  Once working professionals are required to pass the licensing test every few years, I believe that the professional boards would ensure that the testing is relevant.  This levels the playing field between first time examinees and existing professionals, and would help to ensure that the passing the test is relevant to the minimum skills required by the profession.  Curving the test scores should not be method to determine who passes.  If the test is a relevant indicator, it would place the public at risk to curve the resulting scores.  

CRG

RE: Would required licensure be better for US engineers?

The fact that you have to have 5 PEs vouch for your work over a 5 year period to me is rediculous. I have been out of school over 5 years. I have passed the EIT. I haven't worked with PEs.

Thus, in Alabama, there is no way for me to even take the PE test, unless I was going to solicit for false references.

RE: Would required licensure be better for US engineers?

CRG,

FYI:
My engineering association is thinking of making professional engineer's show continuing education credits to prove they are keeping up their level of knowledge.

RE: Would required licensure be better for US engineers?

QCE,

Many states require continuing education credits for many types of occupational licensing.  My state does not require them for PEs.  The whole issue of continuing education credits required for occupational licensing is a mockery in some instances.  Some professions have sprouted cottage industries where exotic destinations coupled with continuing education result in tax exempt vacations.  The education is minimal because the companies are in fact selling tax exempt vacations guised to look like continuing education.

Why not use a test that reflects the minimum knowledge required for a profession, and ensure that existing professionals have those skills along with the first time applicants.  I have no problems taking the PE exam every two years to continue to work in my profession; however, I think many holders of professional licenses would have a problem with continued testing.  Why would they have a problem with it?  The answer is obvious in my mind.  The examinations required for occupational licensing are claimed to be in the interest of protecting the public.  I don’t think that this is entirely true.  However, if the existing licensees cannot easily pass the exam, could they be a hazard to public safety?  Is this testing process really about public safety?

So to answer the question “Would required licensure be better for US engineers?”
Yes, if the process were to include ongoing testing of existing professionals.  And by testing existing professionals, the testing boards would have greater input when designing a relevant test.

RE: Would required licensure be better for US engineers?

I don't think licensing should be mandated for several reasons.

1. It would stifle innovation.

Actually, that's my only reason. Plus, since engineering is infinitely varied how do you determine what is vital for competence?  Is it a certain level of math ability?  The ability to read industrial codes?  A degree?

That is why there is an industrial exemption. It allows anyone to manufacture and design whatever they wish. To sell the item it may require or be helpful to have agency approval such as FDA or UL but you don't need a PE stamp to design a new light bulb.

On a seperate topic, if people want to see more engineers get a PE, drop the PE references from the requirements.

RE: Would required licensure be better for US engineers?

Texas added continuing education requirements.  Please post details on those exotic continuing education trips.  For part of the training I may attend seminars at trade shows.  I may take some formal university credit but more likely in management rather than technical topics.

John

RE: Would required licensure be better for US engineers?

I'm jumping in late, and don't have anything to add to the discussion except to make a comment about an earlier post. BigH stated:

 - Canada Passport applications overseas will not allow a
   professional engineer sign as a guarantor - but they
   will allow a banker or a mayor of a town.  We don't
   really get the public respect because we do not really
   demand it, in my view.

While it may be arguable that engineers don't get enough respect, in fact a P.Eng can sign as guarantor for a passport application, I know first hand because after university my wife and I went to travel Europe for a few months and the only person I knew well enough to ask to sign my passport application that was qualified was one of my professors that was a P.Eng.

On that note, this is for the Canadian engineers, and anyone else that wants to sound off. Most of my professors teaching at my university were not P.Eng's (a few were) my professional association brings up the debate that teaching engineering falls under the definition of practicing engineering under most Engineering Acts in Canada. Should we be requiring our professors to register as P.Eng's? If not...why not?

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