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 TugboatEng on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
PE Waive for PHD 11
- Thread starter lycosbpl
- Start date
msquared48
Structural
I think that we should have a PHD wave for a PE, that way neither accomplishment will mean anything!
Mike McCann
MMC Engineering
Motto: KISS
Motivation: Don't ask
Mike McCann
MMC Engineering
Motto: KISS
Motivation: Don't ask
-
2
- #22
A PhD and a PE are not the same thing. I don't have to remind everyone that a PhD is a Doctor of Philosophy. Obtaining a PhD means that the individual is pursuing a career as a researcher or as a professor not as a practicing engineer.
A PE is Professional Engineer licensed by the State in which he practices. This license represents that the individual meets the minimum requirements set by the state and has the authority to sign and seal or "stamp" engineering documents (reports, drawings, and calculations) for a study, estimate, design or analysis, thus taking legal responsibility for it.
A PhD will look at the minute differences in analysis to determine patterns, while a PE will utilize a factor of safety to account for those minute differences. A PhD and a PE are not the same, and should not be interchangeable.
Joe Alvin Haun, PE, MSE
Engineering Business Publications
A PE is Professional Engineer licensed by the State in which he practices. This license represents that the individual meets the minimum requirements set by the state and has the authority to sign and seal or "stamp" engineering documents (reports, drawings, and calculations) for a study, estimate, design or analysis, thus taking legal responsibility for it.
A PhD will look at the minute differences in analysis to determine patterns, while a PE will utilize a factor of safety to account for those minute differences. A PhD and a PE are not the same, and should not be interchangeable.
Joe Alvin Haun, PE, MSE
Engineering Business Publications
Well said haun6!
The essential difference between PE and anything else is responsibility. When the s#*t hits the fan legally, a PE has nowhere to hide whereas everyone else gets to claim or feign innocence, ignorance, non-involvement, etc. Having the inherent responsibility that PE registration imposes changes all of a PE's perspectives regarding all engineering related work and issues.
Don't get me started on real examples of the discrepancies between most professors (even the very best educators) and practical realities!!!!!! Academics can be very valuable members of a team to get something accomplished or developed, but without the practical involvement of practicing PE's silly, if not outright bad, things are likely to be the result.
I have nothing but great respect and gratitude for all but a couple of my professors, but only a very few of them could be trusted to touch a wrench or screwdriver without getting themselves hurt.
Valuable advice from a professor many years ago: First, design for graceful failure. Everything we build will eventually fail, so we must strive to avoid injuries or secondary damage when that failure occurs. Only then can practicality and economics be properly considered.
The essential difference between PE and anything else is responsibility. When the s#*t hits the fan legally, a PE has nowhere to hide whereas everyone else gets to claim or feign innocence, ignorance, non-involvement, etc. Having the inherent responsibility that PE registration imposes changes all of a PE's perspectives regarding all engineering related work and issues.
Don't get me started on real examples of the discrepancies between most professors (even the very best educators) and practical realities!!!!!! Academics can be very valuable members of a team to get something accomplished or developed, but without the practical involvement of practicing PE's silly, if not outright bad, things are likely to be the result.
I have nothing but great respect and gratitude for all but a couple of my professors, but only a very few of them could be trusted to touch a wrench or screwdriver without getting themselves hurt.
Valuable advice from a professor many years ago: First, design for graceful failure. Everything we build will eventually fail, so we must strive to avoid injuries or secondary damage when that failure occurs. Only then can practicality and economics be properly considered.
haun6 hit the nail on the head, in some countries a PHD actually makes you less attractive to industryas that extra knowledge can tie you down.
I also think that somptinguy makes a very good point. Why do you need to do a second degree in the US to achieve a level that is achieved by a single 4 year degree elsewhere in the world (UK, Australia e.t.c.). Interesting that the US is also the only one out of the three countries with a fully privatised university system - anyone see the pattern!
I also think that somptinguy makes a very good point. Why do you need to do a second degree in the US to achieve a level that is achieved by a single 4 year degree elsewhere in the world (UK, Australia e.t.c.). Interesting that the US is also the only one out of the three countries with a fully privatised university system - anyone see the pattern!
A PhD had value prior to 1990, prior to the internet and prior to mass marketed software. The PC revolution that allows one expert to program a generalized solution in a software package that can be mass marketed to all industries basically replaced the niche that many industrially employed PhD's had filled. Now, at best , a PhD can teach at college and perhaps find a research job.
What surprised me circa 1992 was the direct explicit notice by the gov't that there is expected to be a ( 90% ) decline in positions for PhD's in physics, and directly discouraged any sturdent to pursue that track.
What surprised me circa 1992 was the direct explicit notice by the gov't that there is expected to be a ( 90% ) decline in positions for PhD's in physics, and directly discouraged any sturdent to pursue that track.
"A PhD had value prior to 1990, prior to the internet and prior to mass marketed software. The PC revolution that allows one expert to program a generalized solution in a software package that can be mass marketed to all industries basically replaced the niche that many industrially employed PhD's had filled. Now, at best , a PhD can teach at college and perhaps find a research job."
Wow. Seems the garbage coming out of those "software packages" will be the future garbage designs.
We all know that an understanding of the software is the fundamental.
Not to mention that research in industry does not limit itself to just making code...
![[peace]](/data/assets/smilies/peace.gif "[peace] [peace]")
Fe
Wow. Seems the garbage coming out of those "software packages" will be the future garbage designs.
We all know that an understanding of the software is the fundamental.
Not to mention that research in industry does not limit itself to just making code...
Fe
"No PhD's in physics, and cutbacks at NASA. Could this be a notice from the gov't that they don't like you pretending to be smarter then they are? "
Why do we have a biased against persons with a doctorate? Although I sense something I will not get into....
Fe
Why do we have a biased against persons with a doctorate? Although I sense something I will not get into....
Fe
Qshake;
If you say so.
I have had the experience of working with a large eng company from 1978 thru 1998, and directly witnessed the continuous "downsizing" of the research staff and the "subject experts" ( nearly all Phd's) and their direct replacement with less educated engineers using ( now ubiquitous) PC based computer programs and ( also ubiquitous) internet searches to satisfy management as to the likely root cause of a failure of equipment and likely solution .
There is no doubt that the better educated PhD has a deeper understanding of the material, and in many cases that deeper understanding of the technical matter can either lead to a better solution or avoid "unintended consequences" of those solutions adopted by less knowlegeable persons. But there is also no doubt that industry has moved on , in the direction of lower overhead and "higher productivity" afforded by now universally available software .
And of course it is true that a person running a computer program for which they did not develope, and who does not know the limitations of the models that the program was based on, is playing with fire and would eventually incorporate incorrect results in the technical solution to a problem. But I submit the same is true for the most credentialled PhD "subject matter expert" who also does not have access to the program's source code ( and who likely is not also experienced in the incorporated numerical methods ) to absolutely rule out equivalent failures. A prime example is the ( now dated) case of the series of US nuclear plants built in the late 1970's designed using an nuclear-industrry accepted ( mainframe baesd) computer program that was to determine piping loads due to earthquake events. A lone NRC inspector found a glitch in the program, which led to re-examination of dozens of designs and subsequent revsion of supports in dozens of plants.
So, my hat truly is off to those that can hack the extra 3 yrs at grad school plus find a job ( outside of home depot ) that uses your education. But the gravy train of industrial jobs has left the station 20 yrs ago.
If you say so.
I have had the experience of working with a large eng company from 1978 thru 1998, and directly witnessed the continuous "downsizing" of the research staff and the "subject experts" ( nearly all Phd's) and their direct replacement with less educated engineers using ( now ubiquitous) PC based computer programs and ( also ubiquitous) internet searches to satisfy management as to the likely root cause of a failure of equipment and likely solution .
There is no doubt that the better educated PhD has a deeper understanding of the material, and in many cases that deeper understanding of the technical matter can either lead to a better solution or avoid "unintended consequences" of those solutions adopted by less knowlegeable persons. But there is also no doubt that industry has moved on , in the direction of lower overhead and "higher productivity" afforded by now universally available software .
And of course it is true that a person running a computer program for which they did not develope, and who does not know the limitations of the models that the program was based on, is playing with fire and would eventually incorporate incorrect results in the technical solution to a problem. But I submit the same is true for the most credentialled PhD "subject matter expert" who also does not have access to the program's source code ( and who likely is not also experienced in the incorporated numerical methods ) to absolutely rule out equivalent failures. A prime example is the ( now dated) case of the series of US nuclear plants built in the late 1970's designed using an nuclear-industrry accepted ( mainframe baesd) computer program that was to determine piping loads due to earthquake events. A lone NRC inspector found a glitch in the program, which led to re-examination of dozens of designs and subsequent revsion of supports in dozens of plants.
So, my hat truly is off to those that can hack the extra 3 yrs at grad school plus find a job ( outside of home depot ) that uses your education. But the gravy train of industrial jobs has left the station 20 yrs ago.
Well stated, davefitz!
Anyone that bothers to read the licensing "legaleze drivel" attached to all of the "magical" software packages will find disclaimers for liability for anything and everything. Any PE who signs responsibility to work only on the basis of such software is a near perfect example of a fool. A PE is by definition presumed to be both competent and responsible.
Experience and advanced education are both very important, indeed essential, but with the ever mounting financial pressures for the short-sighted running of businesses, anything that shaves short-term costs will prevail regardless of long-term costs or tragedies. Does anyone really believe that the software is not being developed with similar short-term financial pressures?
Valuable advice from a professor many years ago: First, design for graceful failure. Everything we build will eventually fail, so we must strive to avoid injuries or secondary damage when that failure occurs. Only then can practicality and economics be properly considered.
Anyone that bothers to read the licensing "legaleze drivel" attached to all of the "magical" software packages will find disclaimers for liability for anything and everything. Any PE who signs responsibility to work only on the basis of such software is a near perfect example of a fool. A PE is by definition presumed to be both competent and responsible.
Experience and advanced education are both very important, indeed essential, but with the ever mounting financial pressures for the short-sighted running of businesses, anything that shaves short-term costs will prevail regardless of long-term costs or tragedies. Does anyone really believe that the software is not being developed with similar short-term financial pressures?
Valuable advice from a professor many years ago: First, design for graceful failure. Everything we build will eventually fail, so we must strive to avoid injuries or secondary damage when that failure occurs. Only then can practicality and economics be properly considered.
Get your facts right....a PHD is on average 6 years more school then a B.Sc. ...not 3.
Dare I say to all of you that think in whispers and type aloud to write your own "code". (we will see how long it takes you to come begging for help from those you insult)
Fe
Dare I say to all of you that think in whispers and type aloud to write your own "code". (we will see how long it takes you to come begging for help from those you insult)
Fe
Fex32, depends where you get the PHD doesn't it?
I've known lots of folks from a certain geographical location that did PHD's in about 3 years.
I've known lots of folks from a certain geographical location that did PHD's in about 3 years.
Posting guidelines faq731-376 (probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484
fex32:
I can only speak for the college experience I had at RPI- the average time at that college to attain a Phd in engineering was 3 yrs past a batchelors circa 1975. Likewise, it was 4 yrs for a BS . My understanding is that many schools now allow a longer time to matricualte, may e due to the poorer quality education now recieved in high school, but more likely due to the schools grab at another years worth of tuition.
6 yrs of add'l study at a tuition + fees of $50k per year vs working as a degreed engineer at $75K per year would be a tough economic bargain .
I can only speak for the college experience I had at RPI- the average time at that college to attain a Phd in engineering was 3 yrs past a batchelors circa 1975. Likewise, it was 4 yrs for a BS . My understanding is that many schools now allow a longer time to matricualte, may e due to the poorer quality education now recieved in high school, but more likely due to the schools grab at another years worth of tuition.
6 yrs of add'l study at a tuition + fees of $50k per year vs working as a degreed engineer at $75K per year would be a tough economic bargain .
It really should be noted that you cannot get a PhD without a masters so you must add that time in. A PhD program requires at a minimum (what I've seen) 72 hours. Naturally that is dependent on many factors. But the bulk of those 72 hours come from the 30 or so you did with your master's degree. So the two are very much connected.
Regards,
Qshake
![[pipe]](/data/assets/smilies/pipe.gif "[pipe] [pipe]")
Eng-Tips Forums:Real Solutions for Real Problems Really Quick.
Regards,
Qshake
Eng-Tips Forums:Real Solutions for Real Problems Really Quick.
As I recall, a pHd is 90 credit hours past a BS, including credits for the thesis. If you only want a MS, that is typically 30 credit hours past a BS.
Minimum full time credit hours is 12 hrs/semester, max is rarely over 20 credit hours per semester ( 2 semesters per annum excluding summer)
The 90 hrs in 3 yrs can be accomplished assuming one is not using a teaching apprenticeship to pay for tuition, as a teaching load of 2 classes per semester makes it difficult to carry 15 credit hrs .
Minimum full time credit hours is 12 hrs/semester, max is rarely over 20 credit hours per semester ( 2 semesters per annum excluding summer)
The 90 hrs in 3 yrs can be accomplished assuming one is not using a teaching apprenticeship to pay for tuition, as a teaching load of 2 classes per semester makes it difficult to carry 15 credit hrs .
PhD is 90 credits (48 course, 42 research)
MS is 30 credits (21 course, 9 research)
It completely depends on where you do your MS if your credits can transfer. If I went for the PhD it would have taken me an additional 2.5 years on top of the 1.5 for the MS. 6 years for PhD is not unheard of but it's not typical from my experience.
MS is 30 credits (21 course, 9 research)
It completely depends on where you do your MS if your credits can transfer. If I went for the PhD it would have taken me an additional 2.5 years on top of the 1.5 for the MS. 6 years for PhD is not unheard of but it's not typical from my experience.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question
