Obtaining a license 4

[haggis]

The thread "Tragic Indifferece" started to get a little off track concerning the mandatory licensing of engineers.

I'll start a new thread with this question which I've asked of licensed engineers who are not sure of the answer.

If mandatory lincensing became a reality, who could get licensed. How many State boards or Provincial associations would grant a license to an experienced designer (non degreed)provided certain criteria were met and with the recomendation of an already licensed engineer and what would the criteria likely to be.

Of the proponents of mandatory licensing, how many would suddenly be opposed to granting licenses to this sector of the "engineering" workforce.

 

[EddyC]

I'm in favor of opening up the PE exam to a greater number of applicants then is currently allowed.

 

[haggis]

EddyC

Your answer was short and straight to the point. It will be interesting to see how many more agree.

 

[GregLocock]

I think the WORST thing about the PE licensing process is the exam. I've already done my exams, thank you, at an accredited institution. Why on earth (hypothetically) do I need to do them again? Are these tests easier than my final year exams? If so what is the point? Are they harder? (I doubt it, but it is worth asking).

Now, fair enough, if you haven't done an approved degree I can see the point of the exams. In the UK they used to have HNCs and so on to provide a parallel path for non-degreed engineers. And that was a HARD way to get your CEng.

The rest of the PE licensing process sounds pretty sensible to me. So if all engineers suddenly had to be licensed I'd expect senior (non degreed) engineering managers to get grandfathered in, and more junior designers to have to undergo 4 years of supervised/mentored work, pass the exams, and whatever else the usual process is.



Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[IRstuff]

It's interesting that, here in the 21st century, we are pushing for what amounts to apprenticeships and essentially a guild structure.

TTFN

 

[GregLocock]

Isn't that because engineering is part science and part 'art'? The science can be taught from books, but the reality is that being an effective engineer relies on communication and judgement as well as analytical skills. I'm sure when I left uni I was a gun mathematician, compared with now, but as an advocate I was my own worst enemy. If anything that 4 year 'apprenticeship' period is too short, in my opinion. In the hurly burly of a real job that probably only implies 8-16 hours face to face contact with your mentor - not much.



Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[haggis]

IRsuff

I'm not quite sure about your interpretation of apprenticecships. I served an apprenticeship with a major manufacturer of mining machinery. A good "dirty hands on" 5 year affair which included spending some time in the bowels of the earth to be with and realize what it was like for the end user. Also going through machine shops, assembly shops etc. before speding my fifth year in drafting. I found this invaluable in the days I started to actually design anything. I agree with GregLocock about 4 years being too short as I found that after my 5 official years, my "apprenticeship" was far from over.

GregLocock

You took me back in time a few years as during this apprenticeship, I obtained an HNC (circa 1967). So maybe between my handle and qualifications you could make a good guess as to where I originated.

Anyway, the only reason I would be interested in becoming licensed is the fact that I'm about 8 years from retirement and since I'm not that much into sitting around, that way, I could perhaps continue to do what I love.."practice engineering"

Haagis.

 

[IRstuff]

The EIT phase implies that the new engineer is being trained, supervised and mentored by a master practitioner, which is essentially the definition of apprenticeship...

...ignoring the historical aspects of fetching and carrying for your master ;-)

TTFN

 

[gibfrog]

I have several problems with the system:

1) I have a non-accredited BSChE from the Technion, Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel. A world class institution, but I had to take 6 credits in humanities courses to qualify to take the PE. So I took the CLEP exams in US Government & US History at a local community college, paid $300 for Charter Oak State College of Connecticut to review my results and award me 6 credit hours. The educational committee of my state liscensing board had issues, but I met the legal requirements and they let me take the PE exam.(My BSChE degree required 135 hours of Math, Science & Engineering credits and only 10 hours of other credits, including Phys Ed, Foreign language, etc.. and I had too many foreign language credits and my state board did not count my swimming or riflery courses.)

2) The PE exam was a JOKE. 80 multiple choice questions in 8 hours. I passed with an 89 in CIVIL, Water Resourses by studying Lindberg's book - Civil Engineer's Reference Manual. The whole process was so anti-climatic that I still seriously consider taking another exam for the Nuclear Engineering PE. (Not that I would ever design a Nuclear Plant or device, but just as a personal statement about the system.) The worrysome thing is many do not pass the first time, the second time, or the third time.

3) I had 18 years of experiance prior to the PE exam. My experiance did not really help and the exam was too basic and academic in my area of expertise.

4) The only good thing that came out of the process, besides my seal, is that I learned an awful lot about civil enginering (my degree was a BSChE, but I practiced Waste Water Eng then to Water Resources then to General Land Development.) I also found a kazillion of internet based resources, many from this site but other forums. The process made me a much more informed engineer, but that was because of how I embraced it.

5) Four years experiance is too little for the marginal engineers and maybe too much for great engineers. Many of the lower/middle tier of accredited schools do not teach the necessary analytical philosophy to become a good engineer.
5a) Just getting the correct solution is not enough, it must be cost effective.
5b) One must be able to solve any problem by first principles using only a simple calculator or a graph to achieve an approximate solution.

6) You really can not teach core ethical values or common sense. Either you have it or you missed the boat. One can miss the boat and still become a PE.

7) A great designer is worth more than a mediocre PE.
7a) How many PE's are still in the design trenches after 10 years? Only the guys in small firms, the others are in management.

All Ranted Out,
Gibfrog, PE

 

[RDK]

In Canada one becomes a professional engineer in one of two ways.

The first involves an accredited degree and four years experience and completion of the EIT program. The EIT program is a professional development program and includes some ethics training. It is not a technical development program run by the association.

The second is for those who are not graduates from accredited universities. It normally applies to foreign graduates or people who dropped out of university a couple courses short of degrees. It involves a series of exams and some additional time as an EIT. I do not know much about the program since it is not a common route to the P.Eng.

I have to agree with gibfrog in that I do not see the PE process as being a realistic assessment process. 80 multiple guess questions does not fully prove that someone is qualified. Only through experience in the field and the monitoring of junior engineers by senior engineers can professionalism be developed and properly monitored.

The problem with the PE process is not the PE itself but the unrealistic process for granting the status. I’ve said it several times that exams are not a realistic evaluation method. They can only be a realistic method if they are many of them and they are administered over a long period of time, just like I did during my undergraduate program. If you pass the degree program you should have the necessary knowledge, next you need experience and that cannot be tested by exam.

If you feel that the degree program is not rigorous enough then that is an issue for the university accreditation boards. If the degree is rigorous enough then no more exams should be necessary in the basics of the profession.

As far as the comment regarding PE’s being in management and not as designers, that would go away if all engineers were licensed. There would simply be too many engineers with PE’s for all the management slots. Supply and demand would soon return the market to a similar equilibrium as it is in now.

Al too often the discussion on this topic revolves around the fact that the licensing process is flawed, so the PE itself must be flawed. The process can be revamped and the PE be given some real meaning in a more broader content than is now the case.

The main revision to the process (other than eliminating the exams) should be that the licensing process should be the responsibility of the profession. In Canada the profession is self-regulating and this is one of the main hallmarks of a true profession. (The others being university graduation in a program that is far well rounded in both breadth and death, an apprentice period under senior members of the profession and the right to some area of practice and a title that is excluded to non members of the profession.)

I’m not insulting the professionalism of my US colleagues, just stating that most professions are self-regulating and that engineering should also be self-regulating.


Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng

Construction Project Management
From conception to completion

http://www.kitsonengineering.com

 

[IRstuff]

I'm not convinced that on-the-job "training" necessarily means anything more concrete.

I have noted the engineers in the same discipline with similar yrs of experience are not similarly capable, so if they are all PE's, that still tells me nothing about their capabilities.

This is not that different than looking at two new BS grads; their capabilities can be and often are woefully different. Given the types of jobs available and lackadaisical management, conferring of a PE, en masse, would likely result in the same situation.

Likewise, not that different with MD's, still lots of quacks and less than competent doctors roaming our medical system.

TTFN

 

[JoeTank]

I am a PE and I have opinions about just about everything. I try not to form the opinions until I have some general understanding about the issue. As I read through all of the pros and cons of the systems used to bestow the PE/ PEng I am unable to draw a conclusion about the right method. Both appear to be terrible flawed in some ways. I draw this conclusion because I know several idiots with a PE. I also know several idiots with a PEng. I also know several idiots that don't deserve a PE or PEng. Worse yet, I know a number of excellent engineers that are not licensed either way. As of now I'm of the opinion that both systems have merit (ie; the glass is half-full, not half-empty). I continue to read such debates with great interest.

Steve Braune
Tank Industry Consultants

http://www.tankindustry.com

 

[EddyC]

Lets us suppose that you have to be PE licensed to be an engineer. Would this mean that only PE licensed individuals would be doing engineering? Because there are many different types of people doing engineering at the present (Some are licensed, some are degreed, some have no college education, etc). If only PE licensed individuals would be allowed to do engineering, then we would end up with an immediate shortage of engineers.

Or is it that we want non-licensed people to continue to do engineering, just that we don't want them to use the title engineer?

The way it is right now, the vast majority of engineering is done by non-licensed individuals who then have their PE boss stamp the drawings (At least in consulting companies).

 

[IRstuff]

That may hold true for consulting companies, but other industry exempt companies are not equivalent. Our division probably has dozens engineers with at least BS Eng and probably no more than 5 are PE's. We do almost all of our work on sensors and weapons systems for the military.

While the EE's and ME's could get licenses, I'm not sure what I would do, since there is no PE category for EO systems engineer. While I could potentially ;-) getting a PE license as a EE, I'm not sure how relevant that would be to what I do.

Additionally, what does this mean for cross-function work? In order to be more productive, our people take on additional responsibilities, not necessarily related to what they might have a license for. Would we need to hire a licensed spec engineer, a licenced sensor engineer and a licensed test engineer to do what a single person is currently doing?

TTFN

 

[CanEngJohn]

To license or not to license ... always a good question.

In Ontario I like the impact having a license has on Professional Engineers working in current Industry Exempt situations. While the job does not require a license the "duty to report" aspect of being a PE which is punishable if I breach it creates an excellent third party control to "unethical activities" which might normally be easier to cover up (I am not saying this happens just taking a proactive stance).

In Ontario punishable usually means suspension of my license. While this would not affect my employment in my case it would still have repercussions within the Engieering community. I think that this level of "discipline" would be appropriate for the Industry Exempt positions.

I would also agree with many of the above opinions that we still have a flawed PE process. I know a couple of PEs that would have made me queasy if they were required to perform PE services on a regular basis just after they got their license. Thankfully they were willing to admit their shortcomings and did a lot more training and practical experience before they stepped into more formal PE roles. I "qualified" for my PE license after 5 years of working in industry. However I did not apply until I had 8 years under my belt. I felt the extra years were important to my development and I felt it would have been fraudulent to represent myself as something I did not feel qualified for.

However I believe the Industry Exemptions should be modified so that the Engineering can only be performed by a PE or under a PEs direction. The problem I have encountered routinely in the automotive industry are designers who create designs without Engineering guidance and botch the Mechanical Engineering aspects of their designs (I had to convince one designer that you could not model a weld as unbreakable). It is these sorts of problems which I would hope the removal of the Industry Exemption might clear up. I have encountered basically two tiers of designers - excellent and mediocre. Unfortunately for me the mediocre seemed to outnumber the excellent by about 2 to 1.

I understand cross functional teams and QS9000 etc etc etc ... are supposed to deal with these issues but too many seem to make it out of the Big Three. It makes me believe the Industry Exemption is hindering our ability as a society to address this issue. So I would prefer to expand the licensing erquirements and maybe even beef them up for people from accreditted universities since I belive that is currently the weakest licensing process.

 

[IRstuff]

But that's just the same flaw under a different guise. You're assuming that each and every PE would know that welds are not unbreakable. I know that and I'm neither a PE nor ME.

Not having guidance is a managerial problem, not an engineering licensing problem. I would bet that each of the engineers that you complain about were and are currently supervised by a senior engineer who simply doesn't have time to properly supervise or mentor. Put a PE in charge of a 200 engineer department and you'll get exactly the same result. Additionally, the problem resides in the fact that many engineers are never exposed to actual hardware, e.g., they do paper designs, pass them on and start a new design. Unless your PE with his 200 charges has 96 hrs/day to supervise and review work, it's not going to change.

TTFN

 

[dozer]

IRStuff,

Well said. We can fret all day about licensing but I think the problem is more fundamental. If management is not committed to mentoring . . . and these days of immediate R.O.I., how many are? . . . then the "system" will turn out engineers not up to their full potential.

 

[GregLocock]

I've just started beating up our personal development commitee about mentoring - I see no reason why it shouldn't be compulsory. Our division has doubled in size over the last four years - so the new kids are in a majority (just about).



Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[IRstuff]

I think there's also an issue with the notion of somehow we can "scale up" the independent consultant millieu and map that into large aerospace companies such as Boeing, or LMC. I think that is a fallacy and it's not at all clear that a big company structure can really do what some people think is mandatory for creating a competent and successful PE.

At Boeing, a single manager is responsible for the career development of his entire cadre of 80 engineers, none of whom actually work directly for him, being that he is the functional manager, but ALL the engineers in his group work on different projects and adminstratively report through a program.

On top of all of that, being named manager or PE is no guarantee that you'll get good management. I've met many high level managers who were great engineers, but otherwise stank as managers. They couldn't delegate nor be bothered with training and mentoring, or, they simply were completely unfamiliar with what their engineers actually do.

Thus, the functional manager sees his charges managerially, about 1 or 2 times a year, and otherwise, the engineer is working on his own on some program or project that the manager may know little about.

Not one of my managers have ever run Mathcad or Matlab, so they have no idea whether results presented are truly valid or not.

TTFN

 

[PSE]

There is a lot of good information from both the "yay" and "nay" camps in this and various other threads on licensing. If you had the chance to re-create the licensing system, what would you propose that system become. We are after all, Engineers who like to solve problems and we seem to have one before us. I'll throw this procedure out as a starting point (ie bait for you ).

Minimum 4 year engineering degree from an accredited school. Education or degrees conferred from a non-accredited institution would have to be audited for acceptability. Oath of ethical conduct taken and EIT status conferred.

After 5 years of documented work experience, the candidate may apply for licensure within a specific discipline. Peer review of the applicants work experience and ethical conduct with at least one review board member randomly chosen from the applicant's current employer. Successful review would grant licensure for that discipline.

Consideration for an additional "type rating" can be taken after 2 years of licensure, again through a peer review process. In this case the board members would consist of individuals from the new discipline type to be added to the original license. Both additional educational and work experience would be considered. Attainment of a added type rating would reset the 2 year cycle before another could be considered.

Blast away folks!

Regards,