Most engineering professors in the very well-known (research) universities in the US do not have the PE of any state. Some months ago, an online discussion among several of them indicates that many do not even care about engineering licensure. Can one imagine a professor of medicine, training doctors, not being licensed in his state? Any ideas?
Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations cowski on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
PE for Engineering Professors 13
- Thread starter jakin
- Start date
Credentials may not make the teacher, but lack of them sends a message to the student.
I think that the only way to get the FE included as a requirement for graduation is to require engineering professors to have their PE. I hope to teach when I grow up and I will definately keep my PE up to date when that happens.
There are engineering schools that require that a student pass the FE prior to graduation and I've seen that new engineers from those schools are usually a cut above average. No, I don't believe that passing the FE makes a person a better engineer. I believe that a program that has high expectations from their students results in better engineers--a program that requires the FE will certainly have other "extra" requirements.
David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.
The harder I work, the luckier I seem
I think that the only way to get the FE included as a requirement for graduation is to require engineering professors to have their PE. I hope to teach when I grow up and I will definately keep my PE up to date when that happens.
There are engineering schools that require that a student pass the FE prior to graduation and I've seen that new engineers from those schools are usually a cut above average. No, I don't believe that passing the FE makes a person a better engineer. I believe that a program that has high expectations from their students results in better engineers--a program that requires the FE will certainly have other "extra" requirements.
David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.
The harder I work, the luckier I seem
How well can you impart the subject if you haven't seen much of it?
One of my calculus classes was cross-listed between the math and engineering (theoretical & applied mechanics) departments. It was a class FOR engineers, listed as an engineering course, not just a math course.
The guy teaching it was a fine mathematician. I'm sure teaching to math students he would have been fine. In our case, we're sitting there listening to him talk about vectors and gradients and someone asked, "What's the application"? The professor said he had no idea. No problem with his communication skills, no problem with his grasp of mathematics--but yet he wasn't good enough for us.
A statics professor who can't design a structure would be in the same boat. I don't care how well you understand forces and free bodies; if I ask you what a "pinned" or "fixed" connection really looks like when we're talking about I-beams or reinforced concrete and not lines on a piece of paper and you can't tell me, you shouldn't be teaching it.
I got all the way through my master's degree without ever having designed a major structural steel connection (for some reason we did do this with concrete). If I'd gone on for a PhD, it would have been focus on some research area, still not designing connections. Suppose I'd gone all the way through and then gotten a teaching job? I have excellent teaching abilities and presumably I'd have had excellent grasp of the theory, but I'd still have been one of those profs who had never done the very thing I'm supposed to be teaching my students to do.
Hg
Eng-Tips guidelines: faq731-376
One of my calculus classes was cross-listed between the math and engineering (theoretical & applied mechanics) departments. It was a class FOR engineers, listed as an engineering course, not just a math course.
The guy teaching it was a fine mathematician. I'm sure teaching to math students he would have been fine. In our case, we're sitting there listening to him talk about vectors and gradients and someone asked, "What's the application"? The professor said he had no idea. No problem with his communication skills, no problem with his grasp of mathematics--but yet he wasn't good enough for us.
A statics professor who can't design a structure would be in the same boat. I don't care how well you understand forces and free bodies; if I ask you what a "pinned" or "fixed" connection really looks like when we're talking about I-beams or reinforced concrete and not lines on a piece of paper and you can't tell me, you shouldn't be teaching it.
I got all the way through my master's degree without ever having designed a major structural steel connection (for some reason we did do this with concrete). If I'd gone on for a PhD, it would have been focus on some research area, still not designing connections. Suppose I'd gone all the way through and then gotten a teaching job? I have excellent teaching abilities and presumably I'd have had excellent grasp of the theory, but I'd still have been one of those profs who had never done the very thing I'm supposed to be teaching my students to do.
Hg
Eng-Tips guidelines: faq731-376
-
2
- #23
I earned my Ph.D. in Materials Science in 1992, and my PE license in Metallurgy in January of this year. I have worked for the same employer as a Senior Process Metallurgist in the specialty steel industry for the past ten years, and have concurrently worked as an adjunct Associate Professor in the College of Engineering at Syracuse University for the past 9 years. Jakin is correct in stating that most university professors in United States that work in engineering colleges have not earned a PE license. The vast majority of them are not required to do so. As far as I know, I am one of only two professors in Engineering at SU that is licensed. In answer to hydrae's question, writing technical papers for publication in scientific research journals does not require a PE stamp. However, writing such papers will provide the practicing PE with continuing education credits, which are required in certain states.
Several of my former professors in graduate school were PEs. At my alma mater they HAD to earn their PE licenses to keep their jobs. Back in the 1980s ABET noticed that a significant percentage of the tenured faculty members in my engineering school did not in fact have engineering degrees. Many of them had degrees in related fields such as physics, chemistry, applied mathematics, etc. They argued that these professors were not in fact engineers, and if this college was to maintain its current ABET status, then they would have to hire faculty that had engineering backgrounds or risk losing their accredidation. As a result, the professors all eventually took the PE exams. By passing this exam, it gave them legal recognition as practicing engineers. As a result, the college maintained its ABET status.
The complaint that I most often hear from students regarding faculty members is that their other professors don't have any "real world" experience. This is, in most cases, an accurate statement. Most of the other faculty members that I work with have never held a job in an industrial environment. And they can't teach their students what they don't know themselves. So students looking for actual examples of what they will encounter in the job market when they graduate are usually sorely disappointed. And these students are, in my opinion, short-changed in terms of their education. The reason that most engineering colleges do not require their faculty members to become licensed is that they are not required to do so. And these programs don't view themselves as producing engineers anyway. They are producing the next generation of researchers and scientists. Exceptions to this include engineering schools such as RIT, where practical engineering courses are a priority.
Beware of the expert claiming that you should judge his expertise and ability solely on the degrees that hang on his wall. The PE license tells you that he is "minimally competent". The Ph.D. tells you that he has a great deal of perserverence, and deep knowledge in a relatively narrow field. These degrees tell you nothing of his character, competence, or his integrity.
Maui
Several of my former professors in graduate school were PEs. At my alma mater they HAD to earn their PE licenses to keep their jobs. Back in the 1980s ABET noticed that a significant percentage of the tenured faculty members in my engineering school did not in fact have engineering degrees. Many of them had degrees in related fields such as physics, chemistry, applied mathematics, etc. They argued that these professors were not in fact engineers, and if this college was to maintain its current ABET status, then they would have to hire faculty that had engineering backgrounds or risk losing their accredidation. As a result, the professors all eventually took the PE exams. By passing this exam, it gave them legal recognition as practicing engineers. As a result, the college maintained its ABET status.
The complaint that I most often hear from students regarding faculty members is that their other professors don't have any "real world" experience. This is, in most cases, an accurate statement. Most of the other faculty members that I work with have never held a job in an industrial environment. And they can't teach their students what they don't know themselves. So students looking for actual examples of what they will encounter in the job market when they graduate are usually sorely disappointed. And these students are, in my opinion, short-changed in terms of their education. The reason that most engineering colleges do not require their faculty members to become licensed is that they are not required to do so. And these programs don't view themselves as producing engineers anyway. They are producing the next generation of researchers and scientists. Exceptions to this include engineering schools such as RIT, where practical engineering courses are a priority.
Beware of the expert claiming that you should judge his expertise and ability solely on the degrees that hang on his wall. The PE license tells you that he is "minimally competent". The Ph.D. tells you that he has a great deal of perserverence, and deep knowledge in a relatively narrow field. These degrees tell you nothing of his character, competence, or his integrity.
Maui
- Thread starter
- #24
What I'd like to see is a requirement that a prospective professor work in industry for three or four years between degrees (or after the PhD) before being accepted on the faculty of an engineering program. Unfortunately, with many large research universities, this will probably never happen.
-
2
- #25
It seems that we are moving this thread to: "Professors Should Have Real World Experience". Although I graduated back in 1984, most of my professors did spend a significant portion of their careers out in the real world and most of them worked on some real leading edge projects. After hearing their work experiences, I was and still am green with envy. Perhaps things have changed in the 21 years since I graduated. But everyone should take a look around. Almost everything in this world is now being procured based mostly on price. We can be sure that this has filtered down to the Universities, who probably now look for Professors as cheap as they can get them, regardless of qualifications.
Just did a quick survey of open position at 4 year universities out of the 46 positions investigated 3 required the PhD holder to be a PE or obtain it within 1 year of appointment, 6 preferred a PE license, though it was not a requirements and 37 did not require a PE nor mentioned PE licensure in the job description.
If you feel strongly that a PE is required become a member of the advisory committee for the programs at your local universities. They are always looking for new blood on these committees.
Vita sine litteris mors est.
If you feel strongly that a PE is required become a member of the advisory committee for the programs at your local universities. They are always looking for new blood on these committees.
Vita sine litteris mors est.
GregLocock
Automotive
Just to point out the obvious, mechanical engineers, aerospace engineers, and to a lesser extent electrical engineers are far less likely to require PEs than their civil/structural brethren.
Hence it is hardly surprising that only a small proportion of engineering faculty jobs require PEs.
Cheers
Greg Locock
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
Hence it is hardly surprising that only a small proportion of engineering faculty jobs require PEs.
Cheers
Greg Locock
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
The search I did was for Civil Engineering professor Jobs at 4-year universities in the USA. Though a similar search for Mechanical Engineering had 2 posting preferring a PE licensure and only one (1) requiring licensure be obtain within 1 year of hire out of 25 posts checked.
It is interesting to note that for 2-year institutions a PE is preferred or required in a majority of the positions.
At the 2-year community college that I formally taught at, a PE licensure was worth an additional $4000 per year.
Have a PE’s on staff at 4-year programs (Engineering programs is look favorably on by ABET. (See criterion 5 Faculty page 7 .)
Vita sine litteris mors est.
It is interesting to note that for 2-year institutions a PE is preferred or required in a majority of the positions.
At the 2-year community college that I formally taught at, a PE licensure was worth an additional $4000 per year.
Have a PE’s on staff at 4-year programs (Engineering programs is look favorably on by ABET. (See criterion 5 Faculty page 7 .)
Vita sine litteris mors est.
It is interesting seeing the reactions of those that feel college professors should have licensure in addition to a PhD. I firmly believe that all college professors should be subject matter experts by having a PhD in their engineering discipline, nothing more.
Frankly, it really does not matter if college professors obtain a PE license. Teaching is an art, not a science. I would rather have a subject matter expert that can convey to me a real understanding of general theoretical principles in engineering. A Professor that can teach these principles and has real work experience to show some application is definitely a plus, but should not be a requirement.
The application of what you learned as a student happens in that first job as an engineer and is something you need to experience and cannot be taught! A Professor that has a PE license indicates nothing more than they have bothered to take the time to study and pass an exam. If they are a lousy professor, having a PE will do nothing more to improve the situation.
Frankly, it really does not matter if college professors obtain a PE license. Teaching is an art, not a science. I would rather have a subject matter expert that can convey to me a real understanding of general theoretical principles in engineering. A Professor that can teach these principles and has real work experience to show some application is definitely a plus, but should not be a requirement.
The application of what you learned as a student happens in that first job as an engineer and is something you need to experience and cannot be taught! A Professor that has a PE license indicates nothing more than they have bothered to take the time to study and pass an exam. If they are a lousy professor, having a PE will do nothing more to improve the situation.
But NOT having any work experience will make them that much worse.
There are three ingredients:
* teaching ability
* theoretical knowledge
* real-world clue
Having the third doesn't make up for lack of the first two, but having the first two doesn't make up for lack of the third either.
Hg
Eng-Tips guidelines: faq731-376
There are three ingredients:
* teaching ability
* theoretical knowledge
* real-world clue
Having the third doesn't make up for lack of the first two, but having the first two doesn't make up for lack of the third either.
Hg
Eng-Tips guidelines: faq731-376
Hg;
The system is not broke. I would take the first 2 out of 3 of the necessary ingredients you stated above any day of the week, which has worked and turned out darn good engineers. If we had more Professors like Maui that can provide that last ingredient, that would be ideal.
The system is not broke. I would take the first 2 out of 3 of the necessary ingredients you stated above any day of the week, which has worked and turned out darn good engineers. If we had more Professors like Maui that can provide that last ingredient, that would be ideal.
meteng,
The studying process that leads to passing the PE exam is what makes a person a better engineer. This is an extension of the study/test process that is used in college. While I disagree in the way the PE credential is applied out in the real world, the exam itself is most definitely a valid testing tool. The same loopholes that allow for the majority of engineering to be performed by non-licensed engineers also permit teaching of engineering to be done by non-licensed engineers. And I doubt that this will change. Even in Consulting work environments, the majority of engineering is done by the unlicensed and I don't see the leaders of the Consulting Engineering community hiring only PEs. They utilize unlicensed engineers just like Industry and Universities do. Oh, but they claim that the unlicensed are under the Direct Supervision of the licensed. Not from what I have seen, unfortunately.
The studying process that leads to passing the PE exam is what makes a person a better engineer. This is an extension of the study/test process that is used in college. While I disagree in the way the PE credential is applied out in the real world, the exam itself is most definitely a valid testing tool. The same loopholes that allow for the majority of engineering to be performed by non-licensed engineers also permit teaching of engineering to be done by non-licensed engineers. And I doubt that this will change. Even in Consulting work environments, the majority of engineering is done by the unlicensed and I don't see the leaders of the Consulting Engineering community hiring only PEs. They utilize unlicensed engineers just like Industry and Universities do. Oh, but they claim that the unlicensed are under the Direct Supervision of the licensed. Not from what I have seen, unfortunately.
The PE doesn't just mean you passed a test. The PE also means you had a certain amount of real engineering work experience, and it is that experience which makes a PE worthwhile for the perfesser. I already know they know how to take exams.
This would be more meaningful in states that don't accept teaching experience to count toward the requirement. Some might.
Hg
Eng-Tips guidelines: faq731-376
This would be more meaningful in states that don't accept teaching experience to count toward the requirement. Some might.
Hg
Eng-Tips guidelines: faq731-376
EddyC;
My post was not meant to reduce the value or perception of a PE license, I have one and I know what is required. I do not agree with one point that you made - "The studying process that leads to passing the PE exam is what makes a person a better engineer."
This is a general statement that I do not agree with. The only statement I can make is that an engineer with a PE license has demonstrated minimum competency on the day they took the exam and passed to practice the art of engineering.
I have seen some real bozo's that couldn't engineer their way out of a wet paper bag, and they have a PE license! Any engineer that takes their job seriously and with a passion for learning will be a darn "good" engineer with or without the license.
My post was not meant to reduce the value or perception of a PE license, I have one and I know what is required. I do not agree with one point that you made - "The studying process that leads to passing the PE exam is what makes a person a better engineer."
This is a general statement that I do not agree with. The only statement I can make is that an engineer with a PE license has demonstrated minimum competency on the day they took the exam and passed to practice the art of engineering.
I have seen some real bozo's that couldn't engineer their way out of a wet paper bag, and they have a PE license! Any engineer that takes their job seriously and with a passion for learning will be a darn "good" engineer with or without the license.
I have known PhD teachers who were not very smart in my opinion. Having a PhD in a limited or narrow specialty does not necessarily make someone either a good teacher or a good engineer. Theory without practice or application is just talk. I think it is very important for professors to EARN their PE licenses. PE licenses should not be given to engineers or professors just because they have PhD's. They should pass both the FE and PE exams AND have the required years of work experience under a licensed engineer.
The important thing about the PE is that you have demonstrated professional competence to lisenced engineers prior to being accepted for the test. The test (and studying for it) don't really add much for someone who has been in acedemia long enough to get a PHd.
I had a much tougher time getting the PE's to sign off on my competence (in Oil & Gas PE's are pretty rare) than passing the test.
I had some pretty narrowly focused professors (one guy was working on flow in blood vessels and he managed to skew an undergraduate fluids course to the point many of the students thought that every flow was de facto damaged by shear forces). And every one of them needed some grounding on a planet that I can pick off a star chart.
PE's for professors is not a panacea, but it simply can't hurt to put another barrier between fools and tender young minds.
David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.
The harder I work, the luckier I seem
I had a much tougher time getting the PE's to sign off on my competence (in Oil & Gas PE's are pretty rare) than passing the test.
I had some pretty narrowly focused professors (one guy was working on flow in blood vessels and he managed to skew an undergraduate fluids course to the point many of the students thought that every flow was de facto damaged by shear forces). And every one of them needed some grounding on a planet that I can pick off a star chart.
PE's for professors is not a panacea, but it simply can't hurt to put another barrier between fools and tender young minds.
David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.
The harder I work, the luckier I seem
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Question
- Locked
- Question
