FE/PE exam failures 2

[RDK]

I don’t want to get flamed by those who are qualified, competent engineers just not PE’s and who work in an industry exempt area but I cannot help but to ask this question:

How many people are there out there are in industrial exempt area because they are not qualified to write or capable of writing the FE or PE exams?

With a 20% failure rate on an exam that simply purports to test the basic core knowledge that should be common to every engineer, there must be some who are not capable of passing this basic exam and are working in industry exempt areas. With a similar passing rate for the PE exam, there must be some who are not capable of passing this exam but are working in industry exempt areas as well.

I realize that the PE is not common in some areas and that there are capable, knowledgeable and competent individuals in exempt areas, but where do those who cannot pass the exams go to make a living? I cannot help but to think that a significant number of them end up in exempt areas.

Not that’s something to think about the next time you get on a US build airliner. Who really did design this thing?

Please don’t flame me. I just cannot help but to wonder.




Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng

Construction Project Management
From conception to completion

http://www.kitsonengineering.com

 

[BobPE]

yikes...lol....anyone can be an expert, just not on engineering....the laws of each state cover this....

The fire chief example is a good one...lets explore that....he can be an expert on that subject, I cant think of anyone being more qualified....but if his testimony went to...lets say....the electrical service was engineered incorrectly...let me [the fire chief to the jury or judge] explain what engineering failures caused the damage...

It is at this point that he, or anyone, would be hodling themselves out as a PE...this is the part that is against the law...

Anyone can be an expert on anything except engineering [in this case]....in court that is...a court is public, that is why the PE was created, you cannot dispense engineering to the public without a PE. Can you imagine a high school kid, who can be an expert witness, testifying to engineering? now that is an extreme, but why not, they can be expert too....

I am posting on this becuase I know a lot of engineers and people for that fact dont know the laws....its part of the duty of a PE to explain the laws to anyone that want s to listen....and I have your captive attention [if you havent written me off as a nut case that is] LOL....so I will post freely LOL....

BobPE

PS: electricpete...some people gauge your intellegence on spelling and typo's here....I am not one of them though LOL...

 

[electricpete]

1 - So are you saying that PE law is the basis for requiring an engineering expert witness to have a PE.

2 - Is health and safety of the public at risk on the basis of this testimony?

3 - Isn't protecting health and safety of the public the basis of PE law?

If the answers to these questions are
1 - Yes
2 - No
3 - Yes
then there is some conflicting information.

 

[BJC]

electricpete
1. The ducks are not in the right order here. The court is the entity that decides who is and is not an expert witness. An expert being one who has knowlege and experience in a particular field. Experts use professional judgement and experience to interprit facts and offer expert opinions. Any one can be an expert witness if the court accepts them. PEs by the fact the state has required them to meet certain standards are usually accepted as experts, as are doctors, CPAs etc. You don't need the PE to be an expert. If Kelly Johnson were brought to court It would be easy to get him certifed as an expert in aircraft design even though he may not have a PE.

2. Usually when things get to court public health and safety have allready been breached. Trials are usually held to find what went wrong and who did what. All the facts may not be known ( like a plane that crashed in the ocean ) so there is interprition of facts and theorizing. Experts are given more creedence in interpriting these than laymen.

3. Supposedly yes. But it all started registering land surveyors so people didn't loose land (translate that to money) and mechanical engineers ( so boilers didn't blow up and cost insurance companies lots of money). It has been expanded because there are situations in any branch of engineering where poor engineering can endanger the public.

 

[BobPE]

electricpete:

on Item 3, PE law governs dispensing of engineering to the public. A component of that is to protect public health and safety....This also modifies your number 2....PE's are the only ones that can speak on engineering in a public arena....

BobPE

 

[BobPE]

BJC:

I dont get the chance to bust PE's often, but professional surveying came much later after PE's were created for mechanical engineers....Engineers used to perform surveys, they did it so poorly, they took survey responsibilities away from them and made surveying a professional license status...PE's are only allowed to survey things that are not publically recorded....LOL...

BobPE

 

[BJC]

BobPE

Google up on Wyoming 1907.
Wyoming registered Land Surveyors and Engineers first, Them cowboys is pretty progressive, they also were first with womens surrerage. If you live somewhere else your state wasn't the first to do so. Surveying was and still is in many schools part of the Civil program. If as a civil engineer you want to survey you can be regestered. You just have to the rules to get a PLS License. I see drawings and plats freqently that are stamped by a PSL and PE ( the same person). PSL was created as a more specializes and less rigerous requirement than civil engineering.

 

[electricpete]

I think I agree with BJC who has said "any one can be an expert witness if the court accepts them." (PE or not). That is the point I was trying to make. I agree PE would make it easier.

I still have a bone to pick with Bob.
"PE law governs dispensing of engineering to the public. A component of that is to protect public health and safety....This also modifies your number 2....PE's are the only ones that can speak on engineering in a public arena...."

Your last statement raises a lot of questions which have been discussed here.
A professor can discuss engineering without a PE, can't he?
We can discuss engineering without a PE here, can't we?
Joe from McDonald's can discuss engineering when he gives me my fries, can't he?
I think the answer to all of the above questions is yes, as long as the context is not one that could endanger the public health and safety. That means no design work among other things.

Plus which... he mentioned my typo's. When are they going to get a spell checker on this thing.

 

[RDK]

Electripete

You have a spell checker in your word processor.

Just cut and paste.

To add a spell checker to the site would take up a lot of bandwidth and take a lot of time. (Every flagged word would have to be transmitted to you, with suggestions, and then the response would have to be sent back etc.)

Any non standard words included would be flagged, like your handle or most abbreviations.

The spelling would be American, which would be wrong for those of us who use Canadian, British, and Australian spellings.

Who would take responsibility for adding words to the database?




Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng

Construction Project Management
From conception to completion

http://www.kitsonengineering.com

 

[BobPE]

LOL RDK, everyone knows the sing on a great engineer is that they can't spell!!!! Be proud and go forward!!!! LOL

electripete....

your questions are good for thought...

1. A professor can talk about engineering, but, he can not say he is an engineer and cannot dispense engineering to the general public holding themselves out as an engineer, this would apply to court....

2.We can discuss engineering, but again not to dispense advice to the publie holding yourself out as an engineer. You can hold yourself out as an engineer only working for an exempt agency....

3. If the McJob persone says that he is an engineer then talks to you about engineering, he is breaking the law without a PE....

It comes down not to design work and sealing things, it comes down to dispensing advice....this is the root...this is where it usually goes wrong....

The PhD is the toughest one, they teach engineering privately, but many of them cannot get the PE for one reason or another...that restricts them from offering advice publicaly....they can only be an expert witness, not an expert engineer witness....In many cases where the engineering is in question in the courst, alternate engineering opinions are the focus of the defense or prosecution....these opinions can only be entered to the court by PE's.....

You are right in saying though that not aq lot of people know this...fault for that...who knows....engineers are supposed to preach the law....thus my soap box...LOL

BobPE

 

[electricpete]

I like Bob's approach better than Rick's. I'm proud and going forward, typo's and all.

On the subject of PE requirement for expert testimony, I was wrong (there is a first for everything ;-)

Texas PE law as shown at

http://www.tbpe.state.tx.us/downloads/laws.doc

Excerpt:
"Section 2. DEFINITIONS. As used in this Act the term:
....
(4) "Practice of engineering" or "practice of professional engineering" shall mean any service or creative work, either public or private, the adequate performance of which requires engineering education, training or experience in the application of special knowledge or judgment of the mathematical, physical, or engineering sciences to such services or creative work.

To the extent the following services or types of creative work meet this definition, the term includes consultation, investigation, evaluation, analysis, planning, engineering for program management, providing an expert engineering opinion or testimony, engineering for testing or evaluating materials for construction and other engineering uses, and mapping; design, conceptual design, or conceptual design coordination of engineering works and systems; etc etc"

 

[leanne]

Owed to a Spell Checker
with apologies to Percy Dovetonsils (author unknown)

I have a spelling checquer
It came with my pea sea
It plane lee marks four my revue
Miss steaks aye can knot sea

Eye ran this poem threw it
Your sure real glad two no
It's vary polished in it's weigh
My checker tolled me sew

A checker is a bless sing
It freeze yew lodes of thyme
It helps me awl stiles two reed
And aides me when aye rime

To rite with care is quite a feet
Of witch won should be proud
And wee mussed dew the best wee can
Sew flaws are knot aloud

And now bee cause my spelling
is checked with such grate flare
Their are know faults with in my site
Of nun eye am a wear

Each frays comes posed up on my screen
Eye trussed to be a joule
The checker poured o'er every word
To cheque sum spelling rule

That's why aye brake in two averse
By righting wants too pleas
Sow now ewe sea why aye dew prays
Such soft wear for pea seas



BTW, talking about engineering & representing oneself as an engineer giving engineering advice are two different critterz.

 

[USACompositeGuy]

To answer your question I will start by asking a question. Would any of “us” in the exempt areas step on the airplane that you designed with your PE? My guess would be NO.

I think that the certification must fit the job, and to be very honest a PE does not prepare you for a task like designing an airplane. However the DER certification specifies that you have an expertise in different areas of aviation. Along with this is the idea that you must be a competent engineer to pass the DER exam.

Being a mechanical engineer by degree I understand the importance or implied importance of the PE/FE exam. But most airline engineers went to school to be in the aviation field and therefore never were pressed to become a PE. I don’t however think that makes them any less capable of design.

This would also raise the question of different areas of engineering being “easier” than other. For instance, I would assume that you are a Geotechnical or environmental Civil engineer by degree. Is this because you could not handle the complexity of Structural Civil engineering, or was it just simply because that is the area that you choose?

I don’t mean to burn your balls, or anyone else’s for that matter, but I feel that we probably all work around incompetent engineers in all fields, some of which have passed the PE/DER/etc. exams.

Besides all of the engineers that you are referring to are out working on a time test in a big plant some where. (I’m Just kidding, don’t get your panties in a wad)

 

[brad]

RDK--my observation during lunch-time when I took the PE was that the ONLY people who were back taking the test for a second time were in fact the non-exempt types. Granted, they had a compelling reason to pass (keeping their job), while somebody in exempt may choose to not take it again.

Of the 10 or so people in exempt industry who I've known to take the test, only two have failed. One failed by one question on his first try, but chose not to retake because there was no compelling reason (and he was very frustrated to have been so close). The other seemed to have failed miserably (at least twice). This latter engineer likely falls into your category--we thought he wanted to work as a consultant. (He's also terribly hopeless as an engineer).

Most engineers in my experience are in the exempt field because they want to be. That career path is the root cause; the effect is no PE (the other way around seems to be the rarity, but as stated above is not zero).
Brad

 

[electricpete]

My brother in-law graduated as a civil engineer 15 years ago. He went into construction industry. He tried three times and could never pass the PE. He is still in construction industry… in a management position making over twice what I do.

So I conclude that...
1 - Some people that can't pass PE stay in "non-exempt" industry.
2 - Some people that can't pass PE are still pretty darned good at what they do.
3 - Life ain't always fair ;-)

 

[jpankask]

I work in an exempt industry and I am the only engineer at this plant or several others I know about who is licensed. I earned my license only because it was a personal goal for me and I wanted to leave myself options for the future.

With the exception of civil engineering, I think very few engineers are required or even prompted to get licensed by their employers. Engineers working in an exempt industry has very little to do with whether or not they could pass the PE exam. You can't even take the PE exam for at least 4 years after you graduate. Most engineers have settled into their jobs by then and so the fact that they are working in an exempt industry has nothing to do with the exam.

If the employer is not requiring or even suggesting to take the exam, most people wouldn't even consider it. I know had I not been thinking how much harder it would be to take it later, if and when I did need it, I wouldn't have put in all that time studying and money for references because it didn't do a thing for me at work. However, I now have accomplished a personal goal and should I move to a job where licensing is suggested, I already have that piece of paper.

 

[Timelord]

I agree with jpankask, most exempt industries don't care about licenses. I took the exam and got my P.E. about 4-5 years after graduating from engineering school. Like jpankask, it was a personal goal. I have worked in R&D and the aerospace industries most of my career and beyond looking good on my resume, the license has served no purpose at all. I now have over 30 years of experience and I let my license expire several years ago. The $50/year renewal fee just didn't seem worth it. Companies I worked for were much more interested in my experience and skill set than any piece of paper I carried.

 

[gover]

I had a PE for many years. As an ME working in industry, it never did anything for me. At one point I allowed it to lapse, then re-upped it just because it looks nice on a resume.

It isn't that people who can't get a PE drift into exempt fields. it's the other way around. People working in areas that do not require a PE generally don't get one. Why would they? I've never heard anyone hint they were in a an exempt area because they failed the PE exam. I suspect most people go back and pass their second attempt.

Maybe it shouldn't be this way. Stricter requirements might go a long way to improving the profession. Doctors and lawyers get the money, security and prestige largely because there are high, sometimes artificial, barriers to entering those fields.

 

[Wittenborn]

Hello all!

I find this topic very amusing! I never understood why so many people were bent out of shape about taking the PE or the FE. Many folks in the aerospace field are not required to have either one.

And then I get to the part about getting on airplanes if you knew the designer either did or didn't have a PE! In the aviation field we have this thing called "FAA Certification". Let me tell you, I would be more proud to achieve FAA certification on a toilet seat handle than carry around a piece of paper with a PE certification.
Does this mean I look down on those who have done the latter? Of course not. They play an entirely different ballgame!

Then there is the guy who works at McDonalds, who is not allowed to talk about engineering. I hope my buddies that used to work for Boeing, Cessna, Lockheed and Bombardier (and others) never read this forum. Many of them have decades of experience, have been laid off, and are now bussing tables to make money. I still go to them for advice. Am I breaking the law? Guilty by association?

I don't mean to bust anyones chops over this, but lets all be thankful we have jobs (in engineering or otherwise), whether we have a PE or not. I know very little about any other industry than the Aerospace/Aviation industry, but I'm sure your industry has the checks and balances in place just like mine does.

Something to think about...

Regards,
Grant Wittenborn
Aerospace Engineer

http://www.darcorp.com