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

 

[IRstuff]

> I don't object to the current licensing requirements in California.

> I do object to the insulting tone of certain posters who seem to think that a license is an end-all and be-all, and that non-licensed engineers are useless and incompetent.

> If fellow engineers continue to be disparaged for being non-licensed, then this argument will continue ad naseum, as it does, once a year or so, and there will never be a resolution.

TTFN

FAQ731-376

 

[TheTick]

I do object to the insulting tone of certain posters who seem to think that a license is an end-all and be-all, and that non-licensed engineers are useless and incompetent.

Where?

If fellow engineers continue to be disparaged for being non-licensed, then this argument will continue ad naseum, as it does, once a year or so, and there will never be a resolution.

Again, where?

The majority of licensed PEs here seem to reflect the view that it is just a license, not a pedigree. I can not recall a single PE saying I am less of an engineer because I do not have (or need) a PE.

On the flip side, I perceive a great deal of unwarranted defensiveness and oversensitivity on the part of non-PEs who believe they are being looked down upon. I just don't see it actually happening.

 

[EddyC]

One could argue that the modern legal system coupled with the development of sophisticated design codes has somewhat negated the reasons for the creation of engineering licensure.

Many regular folks out in public also wonder why engineering licensure is necessary when non-PEs get us to the moon and beyond. After all, which is the greater technical accomplishment:

The rocket designed by non-PEs or the launch pad designed by PEs?

(I'm playing devil's advocate here.)

 

[steve1]

The following quote is from NASA administrator Griffin

"I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the ranks of my fellow engineers. As a Registered Professional Engineer myself, I have some idea of your commitment to this profession and to the discipline you have brought to it"

http://www.nasa.gov/offices/nesc/press/060119.html

 

[vc66]

Wow, an exception to the rule. How rare?

V

 

[MacGyverS2000]

quote TheTick]I can not recall a single PE saying I am less of an engineer because I do not have (or need) a PE.[/quote]

Even though they above is true I am so tired of people calling themselves Engineer's that did not pass the test. If you think your good enough to be called an Engineer then sign up and take the test.

I don't know about you, but that bolded statement sure seems like someone telling me I'm not enough engineer until I can prove it with a test.

Dan - Owner

http://www.Hi-TecDesigns.com

 

[TheTick]

Yeah, that's one, maybe. Machts nichts bei mir. One blowhard isn't going to ruin my outlook. It does not seem to reflect the opinion of the bulk of PEs. It doesn't really even sum up his own opinion.

Hopefully I have stated that clearly enough that having passed a PE doesn't make you a better Engineer.

Read the whole text of his post from 10 Mar 09 23:46

I think this thread makes a better case for the paranoia of non-PEs than for the arrogance of PEs. It strikes me as a bit bizarre that an otherwise well-educated lot like engineers has so much trouble grasping the license vs. exempt thing.

 

[Ron]

The term "Professional Engineer", and the acronyms "PE", and "PEng" are legally protected. Is it really necessary to protect the term "Engineer" as well?

Yes. The general public does not know the difference between "Engineer" and "Professional Engineer", so when someone who is not licensed uses the term "Engineer" they are banking on the fact that the public thinks that "Engineers" are smarter than non-engineers, so they exploit the term for financial gain. I see it routinely, and many state boards fail to protect the engineering profession by letting it happen.

 

[BRGENG]

BrunoPuntzJones may have said it best. “Give me a licensing process that is applicable to my field and accepted by my peers and I will gladly participate. “

Would it help the “exempt” engineers to have a PE exam that is more accurate to their profession? A few years ago AE majors had a hard time getting licensed. The Civil exam was difficult since they really only covered the Structural Engineering in school and the SE exam was difficult because they had no bridge experience. So NCEES developed the PE Architectural exam that is geared towards an AE.

Should a similar test be offered for other fields? Would “exempt” engineers take a test like this if offered? Do “exempt” engineers even care if they are licensed?

Since I am licensed I have never looked into this so maybe the “exempt” engineers can answer this for me. In most States to offer Engineering services you have to have a Certificate of Authorization (COA) to offer Engineering Services. In every State that I am licensed in, you have to have a Licensed Engineer to obtain a COA. I understand that many “exempt” engineers do designs for their own company and not outside consultants. Let’s use a Mechanical Engineer that designs a cam shaft. If you work for Ford and design the part for Ford I guess you are considered “exempt”. But if you work for ACME Cam Shafts and design “Engineered” parts for Ford, Dodge and Chevy are you not offering Engineering Services and therefore require a COA?

I have many friends in the industrial field that are Engineers that never took the PE because they never had a boss that was a PS so they could not get the experience working under a PE required to sit for the exam. Is this a big road block in not taking the PE exam?

I do want to clarify to all Engineers, that when I was on the State Board we never fined a non licensed Engineer for practicing. We did fine Architects and Licensed Engineers for offering or practicing Engineering work outside of there expertise and Contractors and Business for offering services when not licensed.

 

[IRstuff]

The roadblock is simply that there is no benefit for those who work under the industrial exemption. We have about 150 engineers, only one of which who had a license, since lapsed, simply because there is zero need for it in our business.

re: COAs, not required in California, particularly since there is no PE exam for designing weapon systems.



TTFN

FAQ731-376

 

[JLSeagull]

Weapons engineers may write software, calculate forces, calculate electrical loads, etc. Such engineering falls within the discipline examinations. Suggest the Fundamentals of Engineering exam for recent grads and coop students nearing graduation even if you don't require registration.

 

[MacGyverS2000]

Tick,

I've been known to play devil's advocate and stir the pot a little, see what rises to the top.

All of my above comments aside, I do understand the necessity of licensing, particularly when it comes to public safety. If there were no rules, there would be no guideline to follow.

Now, with that said, I'd appreciate some clarification of an example situation (I ask this one in particular as it seems to be a real and common scenario, but I cannot verify all of my "facts", which could very well be incorrect). Let's say I'm writing the anti-lock brakes code for a new Jaguar (or autopilot for a new jumbo jet). To pass muster, my code must follow the rules laid down by MISRA (or in the case of the jumbo jet, DO-178B Level A). As far as I am aware, as long as my code passes the tests laid out by those specifications, my code is never signed off by a PE (or at least it's not required, as far as I can tell). It's safety critical, so why isn't it illegal with no PE stamp?

I'll look at answers to this one before I add any more to the discussion...

Dan - Owner

http://www.Hi-TecDesigns.com

 

[zdas04]

I've often wondered about similar scenarios and I think the answer is inertia. In the 1800's a bunch of civic structures were build with large doses of wishful thinking substituted for engineering. People were hurt, some were killed. Legislators saw this as a bad thing and started casting about for a way to find someone to punish. They fell upon the idea that certain structures should be designed by people that the government had certified met certain minimum competence levels. That led to the laws requiring PE stamps on certain things and defining the method of acquiring a PE stamp.

In the early days of registration it was just for people designing bridges, dams, and buildings. Just Civil/Structural types. Later on some bright boy in the government had the idea that having other sorts of engineers demonstrate their minimum competence to the government would be a good thing, but they didn't have a clear idea of why that would be a good thing. So you get ME's that never have to stamp anything because there is no legal requirement for the stamp on most things.

Six years ago I started my business and never used my PE stamp on anything for the first 3 years. Then the EPA changed the Spill Prevention Countermeasure Control (SPCC) regulations to require a PE stamp on the SPCC Plans. Then New Mexico changed the surface waste management regulation to require a PE stamp on the overall design of an evaporation pond (much more than just the dikes and leak detection system). I've read about a half dozen other reg changes that are adding PE requirements. Today about 10% of my work in Oil & Gas requires a PE stamp.

My guess is that over the next decade or so, the autopilot system will require a stamp. Based on what I'm seeing on the Environmental side, I would expect it to be on the whole system that includes both the hardware, the connections to the airplane, and the software. The HSSE juggernaut is going to overtake us all for good or ill.

The regulators came up with a shiny hammer, now they're working to develop a set of nails to use it on.

David

 

[vc66]

BRGENG-

I would absolutely take a PE exam that was dedicated toward a field in which I work. Right now I work at a company that makes Ultra-high Vacuum chambers, and I used to work for a few medical device manufacturers; both exempt industries.

My main annoyance is that in order to call myself a Professional Engineer (which literally means an engineer who makes money doing engineering work, which I contend I do on a daily basis anyway), I have to learn a bunch of codes and standards for work that I would (probably) never do. This bothers me because if I'm good at what I do (in that exempt industry), why shouldn't I be able to start my own (consulting) business, and advise other people/companies about the engineering that I do well? Why should I have to take a test which has nothing to do with my area of expertise?

I fully understand the legal intent of licensing for the engineering profession, and I wouldn't complain if regulators forced all engineers to be licensed (and gave the proper training for it). I would hope then, that there would be a multitude of test areas in which one can find themselves a best fit.

V

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

vc66

I am also work in the ultra-high vacuum field. Maybe they need a vacuum engineering PE.

 

[vc66]

Bruno-

I would most definitely take that.

V

 

[ShaggyPE]

vc66,
For the mechanical PE with the depth in machine design, there really wasn't much (if at all) code related stuff. I could see that being the case for thermo/fluids or hvac, but not machine design. In machine design, there was a lot of strength of materials, a little dynamics. It wasn't that bad. I took a prep course and put in a lot of time studying. I shelled out about $1500 for the exam, the class, and the books. In the end, I would say it was worth it, I didn't need it for my job, I too work in medical. I just did it 'cause I wanted it. I don't know if I would do it in this current economy however... but I would recommend it to everyone.

-Dustin
Professional Engineer
Certified SolidWorks Professional
Certified COSMOSWorks Designer Specialist
Certified SolidWorks Advanced Sheet Metal Specialist

 

[vc66]

Thanks, ShaggyPE. I definitely didn't realize that. I do plan on taking the PE test for a discipline as close as possible to my current situation, so I guess I'll consider the Machine Design depth.

V

 

[rbulsara]

It is amazing and disappointing to see that many so called "smart" engineers cannot differentiate between a "licensing" for "professional practice" and the engineering skills/degrees. They are related but totally different things.

One is required to assign "liabilities" while the other is a technical necessity. When you work for NASA, for example, NASA is liable for your goof ups. When you are on your own, you are the only one and that is where "licensing" is necessary so the state and people will know who to go after if needed.

It is a altogether different matter that PE is seen as added qualifications whether or not legally required for your current situation. For that part, there is nothing you could do but complain. If you want to get compensated same as your PE colleagues, it is up to you to decide. If you are already making more, there is no need to complain!

 

[IRstuff]

You won't find me complaining, at least, not about my salary... ;-)

I will complain about the perception that licensing will "fix" all the problems. That, to me, is rather naive, and counter to historical evidence.

Look at how racially delineated groups change their labels to avoid getting the stigma of the old label. Yet, within 10 to 15 yrs, they're off looking for a new label, not realizing that the label is irrelevant, it's what the label is applied to that matters, and that can't even change, just like skin color or ethnicity.

Even though Mr. Peabody has been on TV for nearly 20 yrs, but engineers and scientists are still Mr. Peabody's to the general populace, and that will never change, at least, not without a fundamental shift in educational and cultural priorities.

TTFN

FAQ731-376