Are You An Engineer If You Don't Pass The P.E.? 31

[drawoh]

"Illinois case worries engineering organizations."

Here is the article in Design News. Is this safe to post, or has the subject been flogged to death?

JHG

 

[FeX32]

Similar rules in Canada. You may not call yourself an Engineer unless you have passed the professional practice exam with at least 4 years experience (take a year off if you have a masters or PhD). Not to mention that you have to have a B.Eng. from an accredited university.
You can be fined 50 grand if you don't obey.



Fe

 

[IRstuff]

Even in the case of Texas, there are industrial exemptions:

http://www.tbpe.state.tx.us/downloads/law_rules122108.doc#_Toc219690129

Under § 1001.057. Employee of Private Corporation or Business Entity, it can be interpreted to mean that consultants working for such exempt companies are likewise exempt.

TTFN

FAQ731-376

 

[JLSeagull]

In Texas, the use the engineer title or classification is mostly a problem in connection with an offer to the public to perform engineering services.

Texas § 1001.057 does not permit the person modifying the product or facilities to use the title engineer on a business card, email signature, etc. Several other exemptions apply to specific design activities. A better example is § 1001.061 applied to Telephone Companies. The exemption includes the job title if the person does not use the title in connection with an offer to the public to perform engineering services. If the telephone company employee advises his civic club that he can modify the park patio cover because she is an engineer then she is in trouble with the board of professional engineers.

An amusing side note is the fighting between the Texas architectural board and engineering board regarding building design. Texas too has many other licenses. A landscape architect or interior designer wants to protect her turf too.

 

[Ussuri]

Move to the UK. Anyone can call themselves an Engineer with no fear of prosecution.

 

[Apakrat]

A friend of mine, retired as Engineering Director from a large corporation with head office in Houston, Texas, about 10 years ago. He started full time, at age 18 in 1964, without completing HS, during the initial construction phase of the business. Three others, (which I also call friends and tutors), with engineering degrees, (one a PE and all eventually), began at the same time, all doing identical jobs, but at different locations of the developing business.

When an opening occurred in Houston for someone to fill the head the design engineering department, due to a vacancy caused by an airplane accident. My non HS graduate friend was selected over the graduate engineers, though at that time he had acquired a GED only and was taking correspondence courses. At that time of the business growing pains, where required, consultant RPE’s were hired.

This non GED friend was not a whiz at any of the recognized engineering disciplines. We all recognized his stubbornness to continue to ask questions of experts until he had an answer which he could understand and then relate to others in simple terms. Also, he never failed to credit those he acquired knowledge from, but not until after it was proven his selected choices were correct.

He was one of the best Professional People Engineers I’ve ever met.



At 74th year working on IR-One2 PhD from UHK - - -

 

[EEJaime]

One thing that always seems to get lost is that there are insufficient PE examinations available for a large quantity of engineering fields.

My degree is in Aerospace Engineering, there is no Aerospace Engineering PE. California offers Structural, Civil, Chemical, Electrical, Mechanical, Agricultural, Control, Fire Protection, Geotech, Industrial, Metallurgical, Nuclear, Petrolum, and Traffic. Thousands of Aerospace Engineers work in the field and DESIGNED the vehicles that took Mr. Siegals inventions into space-but they should not be able to call themselves Engineers-except through an "industrial excemption"? Absurd.

I could have taken the Mechanical PE, we studied some of that material along with Thermodynamics, Materials, Structural Analysis, Engineering Econ, Physics, Math up the wazoo, Orbital mechanics, Vector Statics and Dynamics,Chem, etc.... But does passing the Mechanical PE qualify me to practice Mechanical Engineering? Machine Design? HVAC/R engineering? Equally absurd.

I later went back into Electrical, but that's another story. I think this dead horse, as over-flogged as it is, is a discipline specific issue representing the hubris of a portion of the engineering field at the expense of a huge portion of the Engineering world wherein the PE is irrelevant.

 

[JLSeagull]

I already see a star. The subject has been flogged. However, several discipline national exams include options primary emphasis selection. Perhaps mechanical has an aerospace corp. I have not checked.

As suggested in the original post and the replies from the beginning, the law in many states prohibits a person representing herself as an engineer without being a registered or licensed professional engineer. That does not only mean passing the exam. It also means $ending a check to the $tate general refunue fund$.

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

EEJaime's point is exactly why I did not pursue licensure. When I graduated I looked at the tests offered and none of them had much at all to do with what I had studied (or with the field I was going into). What would be the point of me taking the exam?

 

[JLSeagull]

Just like an engineering degree, PE registration opens potential job opportunities that otherwise may be closed.

 

[Mr168]

Despite me falling under one of those Texas exemptions, we received a company-wide e-mail the other day asking all engineering staff who did not have a P.E. to refer only to their engineering department, and not their title, in their e-mail signatures.

What may be good enough for Texas, is not good enough for some companies apparently.

 

[rbulsara]

I posted this in another thread:

Do not confuse a "License" with a "Degree".

PE is a 'License" - a statutory requirement. Not much different than a driving license. You need that to legally practice your profession meaning charging general public (clients) for your services. It meets min. qualification. It is does not make you better or worse than others, but does give you legal permission and some protection.

Just like getting a driving license does not make you a better driver but testifies that you do qualify. So ranting about how good A driver one is without a license does not get him too far with a police officer pulling him over.

After all you won't take an experienced medical assistant as a qualified doctor, would you? Although there can be a terrible doctor with medical degrees and registrations.

Engineers working in exempt industries are protected by their companies who do need to meet minimum standards for whatever they are making. There are inherent checks and balances there. While a lone PE can decide to design a electrical system for a building, and he alone may be responsible to check his own work and then own up to it. It is for those that a statutory registration and licensing is necessary, like for any other professional practices.

Having said that ones with PEs do get paid more than non-PEs, all other things being equal. If you are in such a field, it pays to get licensed/registered.

 

[vc66]

rbulsara-

One hole in your argument.

The non-licensed drive didn't spend four years attending, and graduating from an accredited (driving) university.

The engineer did.

V

 

[vc66]

Non-licensed drive(r)

V

 

[ewh]

I don't think that is really a hole in rbulsara's analogy; regardless of how long you have to study, both require passing a test. It is just an analogy, after all.



"Good to know you got shoes to wear when you find the floor." - [small]Robert Hunter[/small]

 

[drawoh]

vc66,

Maybe the non-licensed driver has spent four years in driver training.

A license means that you meet or exceed a minimum standard. It says nothing about how far the licensee exceeds the standard, and it says nothing about the people who have not applied for the license.

I do not think there is a hole in rbulsara's reasoning.

JHG

 

[vc66]

What I'm basically trying to say, in regards to his analogy is that it'd be like saying someone spent X number of years in school learning how to drive, passed all their individual driving courses, then graduated with a degree in driving, but they're not able to call themselves a driver.

This makes no sense to me. It makes sense to me that they cannot call themselves a Professional Driver (as a title), because they have not passed the Professional Drivers test, but to say that they're not a driver at all is absurd, in my opinion.

I do agree with ewh that it's beating a dead horse, and I will admit it's a little bit of a sore spot with me, so I may just be daft to rbulsara's argument.

V

 

[rbulsara]

I still stand by my analogy and the assessment. It does not matter what you did to acquire the skill. You still need a "License" to legally "practice" your trade. Working under supervision of someone else does not equate to "practice".

PE Licensing is a Statutory requirement not a technical. If you have a degree and experience you can say you are an engineer (as far as I am concerned), you just can't "practice" as an Engineer to provide public service!

Even if the "driver" had spent 20 years learning or driving for president of Timbuktu, he still needs a license to drive around (at least in the USA, for which he needs to pass requisite tests.

 

[rbulsara]

Oh, forgot to thank ewh and drawoh. Good to have someone agreeing once in a while!!

 

[vc66]

Oddly enough, we agree to a certain extent, rbulsara.

As I said, it's a bit of a sore spot, so I apologize if I misconstrued your argument the first time I read it.

V

 

[rbulsara]

vc66:
No need for apology! Discussion is what this forum is about. Plus my views apply to USA residents only.

Cheers!