If not an engineer then what (& role of non-PE's) 38

[Binary]

As stated in the "Where's the respect" thread, I'd like to explore a couple of things:
[ol][li]In the view of some PE's, unlicensed engineers are neither professionals nor "real" engineers.
If that's true, then what are we? Many of us have worked far too long and had too much success to be considered interns, apprentices, or trainees. Many of us have graduate degrees and advanced theoretical and applied knowledge. We're something and I'd like to understand what people who hold the "not pro, not real" viewpoint think. [/li]
[li]Related to that is what you believe to be the role of the unlicensed "engineer." Acknowledging that there are many of us working under the industrial exemption, what is our role in the current structure?[/li][/ol]
My view is that we are professionals and we are *real* engineers. (BTW, if I'm not a professional then how come I'm an exempt employee?)

I see the role of the non-PE as doing whatever engineering work needs to be done for which one has the knowledge/skills/experience to do. I see the PE as the one who provides the oversight and approves whatever critical pieces of a project there are.

This is very simplistic, I know, and I'm eagerly awaiting input from those of you who understand this much better than I do.

I sincerely appreciate the time and energy you choose to put into discussing this. I, for one, will benefit greatly from the discourse.

 

[zdas04]

Binary,
I don't understand the bitterness in your post. I worked as a "real" engineer under the industrial exemption for 21 years. I decided a few years back that the direction I wanted my career to take required that I take the PE exam. I'm doing the same work now as before I got the license. The only difference is that when I retire from a major corporation in September, I'll be able to hang out a shingle and "hold myself forth to the public as a Registered Professional Engineer".

I haven't seen many posts on these boards that ascribe any super powers to PE's or posts that put non-PE's down. Maybe I'm just not looking hard enough.

The vast majority of the 164,000 people registered on this forum do not have a PE license. From the posts I see here I would be suprised if more than 5% of the people in Eng-Tips have a PE or ChEng or any other government-administered license.

The role of unlicensed engineers is very clear in the law - with a PE you can represent those clients that want you to represent them, without a PE you can only do engineering work for your employeer. If your employeer is an Engineering Firm, then your work has to be supervised and signed off by a PE. In industry it is rare for a senior engineer (as you seem to be) to have to have to get a PE to supervise and stamp their in-house work.

The question about being an "exempt employee" is just silly. I work (in oil and gas) with many Field Foremen who have High School diploma's (or in some cases a GED) and are exempt employees. In the world of HR an exempt employee is simply someone who is exempt from the awsome burdon of getting paid overtime.

The advice I always give young engineers is that they MUST take the FE (EIT) early in their carrer because it is very painful to have to go back and learn that material all over again (I waited 12 years and it hurt). Then they can decide for themselves when (or if) they want to take the PE exam - some companies have an automatic raise for passing the PE (mine didn't, but I was in it for the future so it didn't hurt too bad).

If you feel like PE's are putting you down because you don't have a PE, why not get one?

David

 

[BobPE]

zdas04....fantastic post....

BobPE

 

[TheTick]

I do not have a PE cert as yet. I do have a BSME and many years experience. Still, I think I could bear to part with the title "engineer" if it meant that the profession (in the U.S.) was doing a better job of qualifying who is and isn't allowed to use the title.

When I see a person who says "I've been doing this job for 10 or 15 years and I can do everything those engineers are doing!", it usually means, "I've been in the same place or trade for ten or 15 years and I can do everything that other people around me that have been in the same place or trade for 10 or 15 years with a degree are doing."

One of the things that is implied with the descriptors "professional" and/or "engineer" is that the individual so described is drawing from a well of knowledge and experience that is far broader and deeper than the immediate requirements of his current position of employment.

I may make you feel, but I can't make you think.

 

[leanne]

I don't mind people with an engineering education or requisite related work experience being referred to as an engineer even if they do not have a PE - probably because of the industry in which I've primarily worked since getting my BSEE. I do not have my PE because the industry I am in does not require it & typically does not reward one for getting it. I do regret not taking my EIT years ago when the book stuff was all fresh.

I do not like to hear waste removal personnel referred to as Sanitation Engineers or housewives/husbands designated as Domestic Engineers.

from dictionary.com (Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.):

Engineer (noun) \En`gi*neer"\, [OE. enginer: cf. OF. engignier, F. ing['e]nieur.] [ol] [li] A person skilled in the principles and practice of any branch of engineering. [li] One who manages as engine, particularly a steam engine; an engine driver. [li] One who carries through an enterprise by skillful or artful contrivance; an efficient manager. [Colloq.][ol]

 

[rhodie]

1. The discipline of Engineering was around long before degrees, certification, and liscensures existed.

2. Significant feats and advances in engineering have occured absent of any formal recognition of being such.
(The Wright Brothers would be considered technicians today.)

3. Competentcy should not be represented by a piece of paper. Competency should be obvious, but evaluated on an individual basis, by the customer, regardless of ANY degrees, certification, or liscensures. (Certification DOES NOT guarantee a good engineer.)

4. The only purpose certification should serve is to show the customer that a certain consideration has been made to demonstrate competenctcy to a 3rd (unbiased) party with no vested interest in the sucess or failure of that engineer.

5. The problem of liscensure is NOT the pressing problem of engineering today. The scope of the true problem is huge: it involves the lack of recognition of product and process patents across countries, knowledge theft, the sharp contrast of pay scales for engineers across continents, and the philosophy of "cheapness is first priority" when considering the origin of capital engineering services, projects, processes, and manufacturing.

6. College football is coming! w00t!

 

[Focht3]

I hadn't planned on participating in this thread, but...

[blue]rhodie[/blue] made the following comment:

3. Competentcy should not be represented by a piece of paper. Competency should be obvious, but evaluated on an individual basis, by the customer, regardless of ANY degrees, certification, or liscensures. (Certification DOES NOT guarantee a good engineer.)

In an ideal world, this statement is correct. And in an ideal world, Karl Marx' vision of communal life would be the ideal life, too. But we don't live in an ideal world.

The simple fact is that most clients cannot distinguish core competency. Sad, but true. The creation of professional licensing was a response to this basic fact of life -

I learned about this fairly early in life - I come from a family of engineers; my Granddad held Texas PE license N[sup]o[/sup] 100, and his mentor and friend T.U. Taylor (first Dean of Engineering at The University of Texas) held Texas PE license N[sup]o[/sup] 1. To my knowledge, both strongly advocated professional licensing to prevent unqualified people from practicing engineering to a public unable to discern minimum "core" competency.

 

[brad]

rhodie-
Your point (3)--"Certification DOES NOT guarantee a good engineer". True, but certification does indicate a minimum degree of competency. I would argue that a BS does not. (I'm sure everybody has stories about classmates who they wouldn't trust to design a toothpick, yet who still graduated through the efforts of others).

I think your point (4) is behind why many, including myself, advocate for mandatory licensing. Your issues brought up in (5) are, I believe, the children born from a lack of certification.

I am not a PE-bigot. I am the only PE in my office, but I hold no notions that this makes me the best engineer in my office. I believe that the PE, like the Boards and Bars, is representative of the minimum qualifications of the profession. From my experience, any capable engineering graduate should be able to pass both the FE and PE exams (maybe not on the first try, but eventually). If we as a profession had such standards, I think we would ultimately be well-served.

Brad

 

[rhodie]

Focht3, Bradh:

I yield to your wisdom. I have not even put 5 years into the profession yet, so I may not be in such a good position to fix it.

I meant to enforce the idea that the "guaranteed fitness of use" burden should not hide under the merit of certification, but rather on the specific laws and regs. (and common sense!) pertaining to the engineering project. That is, just because we trust the PE'd engineer not to kill us doesn't relieve us of the resposibilty to determine on our own whether or not he is doing a good job. The burden should always fall on the customer, because it is his health that is at risk. (The customer in this case might be both the end-user AND the corporate engineering department that hires the engineer.) I will ask the same stupid questions of a PE's design that I would a technician.

I think the reason that I am so cautious regarding PE's is because one of my professors in college spoke long and proudly about his liscense, yet was such an inept idiot deviod of common sense that the physical plant at the university refused to use his stamp (and paid a consultant big $ for the honor.)

With that aside, I agree with you that a PE does mean something. I tend to respect PE's more than the common BSxE engineer, because I know what the PE's go through to get liscensed. However, the idea that being a PE represents the pinnacle of engineering ability is incorrect. I see that no one in this thread is trying to state otherwise. In fact, zdas04's makes clear sense to me. However, on other threads of a similar nature, there have been those who declared PE-less industry exempts as "sub-par" engineers.

It needs to be agreed that if I lack a PE, my ability may be no less deficient, but I simply lack the required legal certification to say so.

Thanks to all,
Rhodie, EIT, CMfgET

 

[brad]

Rhodie:
"It needs to be agreed that if I lack a PE, my ability may be no less deficient, but I simply lack the required legal certification to say so."

I agree entirely. I am a philosophical proponent of the PE for the reasons described above. I respect that others are not, and lacking a legal requirement have chosen not to get one.

I think that forcing this criteria upon society is the equivalent of plowing the seas (but I can always hope).

Good for you for getting your EIT. I hope you follow up with the PE when your time comes.

Brad

 

[buzzp]

This post was also sent to the thread that this thread originated from. My apologies.

Ok I have to add something. The people that believe a PE is the only way to achieve the title engineer are just plain wrong. Electrical consultants, for the most part, are system integrators. They purchase or specify everthing available COTS (commercially off the shelf). Sure there are those that receive requests to produce a product that solves a specific problem. These types of companies are not the norm. The norm is a consultant working on power distribution or process control or industrial streamlining. The COTS parts must come from somewhere. They come from engineers who have designed the product. Chances are, the engineer that designed the product does not have a PE because PE for electrical engineers (in the majority of states) deals with power ditribution, transmission, etc. Now what value would this have to a guy designing cellular phones. Absolutely none. It has been my experience that the 'design engineer' does not have a PE and the 'systems engineer' does. Do not get me wrong, both engineers have to do analysis of their system (fault, short circuit, relay coordination, etc for the system engineer). Both engineers are equally important in the grand scheme of things. The people that generally want all engineers to get a PE are the disciplines that generally only work in consulting firms such as civil engineers (and construction companies). These types of companies need to have a way to make their clients feel comfortable with who they are hiring to do their project before it is complete. In the design engineers world, the potential clients can simply evaluate their finished product for functionality, safety, reliability, etc. If it meets their needs then the deal is done. There is no need to verify they have a PE when the product will tell the tale. This is very clear to me and should be to all 'ENGINEERS'

 

[miner00]

Getting back to the topic of this thread, I am still waiting to hear what I am? I am an industry exempt engineer in a field with no path to a PE and no PE's to study under in a state where PE license has little meaning. I have worked very hard to learn everything possible and have proven myself to my peers enough to be given substantial responsibilities.

According to dannym in the "where's the respect" thread I (and the majority of "engineers" in the US) am an intellectually deficient fraud. This opinion was applauded by 3 people who deemed his attack worthy of stars. While I do not agree with or appreciate this answer I have to respect that dannym was willing to give such an inflamatory response.

Is this the answer that everyone is satisfied with? Is this is the only answer that is going put forward by my more experienced peers? Is this the kind of guidance and knolwedge I can expect from a PE?

 

[Focht3]

[u[miner00[/u] posted the following:

According to dannym in the "where's the respect" thread I (and the majority of "engineers" in the US) am an intellectually deficient fraud. This opinion was applauded by 3 people who deemed his attack worthy of stars. While I do not agree with or appreciate this answer I have to respect that dannym was willing to give such an inflammatory response.

I'm licensed in Texas and California, and I don't consider you "an intellectually deficient fraud" simply because you are not licensed. (Now, there may be other reasons to call you names that I'm not aware of!)


Frankly, if dannym did express that opinion, and others "starred" his post for that reason, then they're obnoxious and their behavior is reprehensible. But please get a grip - [red]the world is full of educated morons.[/red] Consider the poor sap that made such a statement, and move on. Life is too important to dwell on such nonsense!

 

[BobPE]

in defense of poor old BobPE, I did not star dannym's post, that is not how I feel...lol...although many may think I did...lol....I did however star zdas04's post at the top of this thread...I think it answers the question in a slightly different way than it was asked....The PE benefits YOU as an engineer...it gives YOU freedom that industry does not want nor want you to have....none of my posts have been offensive personal attacks, although I have suffered attack....I take it with a grain of salt....

An exempt engineer path is a rightous one, that benefits someone else....A PE path is equally rightous and benefits the engineer personally in addition to someone else.....I just don't understand why engineers don't get it...

BobPE

 

[zdas04]

This thread is going so fast that it is very hard to keep up. Might there be a bit of emotion in our staid industry?

I have to respond to Buzzp. I'm a flangehead and firmly believe that as soon as everyone stops believing in electricity it will stop working.

That being said, let me delve into a hypothetical case -- if a EE designs the equipment for a large computer network hub and specifies a cooling system for a transformer that is 1/10 the size actually required, the site is built to his specifications (and no one catches the error), and then the site goes into service, overheats, burns down a complex, and kills 20 people.

If the EE had a PE (and stamped the drawings) he could (and probably should, and possibly would) be brought up on criminal charges and go to jail. Same EE without the PE would not face any risk of criminal charges (his company would face significant civil complaints and he might be sucked into that, but probably not). The difference is that those folks who have gone to the bother to get their PE are assuming a personal liability and they are in fact putting their money (and their butts) where their mouths are.

Does that willingness to allow an opinion to become a chargeable offense make them better engineers? Not necisarilly (oh for a spell check), but it does demonstrate a conviction to their profession. I was once a nuclear power plant operator (17 years old with a high school diploma) in the U.S. Navy and they called us "engineers". The Navy has a long standing tradition of calling the "black gang" "engineers". So to use the terminology of this thread I've been a pseudo-engineer, a real-engineer, and now I'm a professional-engineer. I'm certainly not a better person than I was in that engine room 30 years ago, but now I have assumed a different (and scarier) personal responsibility.

The language won't change, we will always have with us sanitation engineers, domestic engineers, and the black gang. In Texas and many other states there is legislation on the books to cause fines to be levyed against anyone who "holds themselves forth as egineers" and doesn't have a PE -- Texas goes to some length to say that engineers working under the industrial exemption may not have the word "engineer" on their business cards or letter heads. It's coming.

Miner00, excuses are so very easy to come up with. When I started working on my PE I was able to find exactly 2 PE's in a company of 110,000 folks (35,000 engineers). I made contact with folks in engineering firms, joined the state society of professional engineers (you don't have to be a PE to join), joined the SPE and the ASME and I found the other 3 PE's willing to vouch for me. It just took work, tenacity, and cheek.

David

 

[EdDanzer]

I have found this thread to prove 1 thing, a PE will be an engineer who becomes specialized in a field, and is willing to assume the liability and restriction for a specific personal need. The need of these peoples service to a business is to limit liability. As the owner of a small business who designs lots of products for several different industries, I hire contract PE’s when the liability justifies, engineers with degrees in a specific field as needed. But when a product needs to be designed and built that required several disciplines for design and construction, a person with general knowledge, good people management skills will be the best lead designer. The attitude exuded here is common with people who think they are better than others because of a piece of paper, and it take good management skills to use these people in a mixed discipline environment. If you don’t have a PE and want one go for it, but don’t expect it to make you a better engineer, happy, get you more respect, or anything else and you will be ok.
One thing schools do not teach is how to manage people when ego’s come into play.

 

[zdas04]

EdDanzer,
I hope your tirade meant something to you, because I just read it 8 times and got absolutely nothing out of it. If you read into the remarks of the PE's that have responded to this thread that we think we're better than someone else or that we have some sort of Napoleonic Complex that shows we have poor self esteem I really feel sorry that we've done such a poor job of communicating.

I guess a person sees what you are ready to see and you see us as lame-oids that need a piece of paper to hold over the community's head to make up for our low self-esteem. I find this particular stereotype distressing, but I will get over it.

David

 

[miner00]

Thank you all for getting back on the subject. I wasn't trying to make excuses or get sympathy for us non-PE's. I really wanted to separate the egoistic rants from the actual opinions. My initial post was made in response to ZDAS04's first post asking where the bitterness came from.

In truth, I am too young to qualify for the PE anyway. Some day it might be important to me and by that time I will probably have had the opportunity to work with a PE in a field where my experience will qualify.

Here is a question though, how is getting a PE better for me as an engineer. I understand how it might be better for me as a part of the general public, making engineers be responsible, but it seems like it would be against my best interests.

It seems to me that working in a large company and being one of only a few PE's would open you up to all kinds of law suits. Say someone in your department working on a project in which you have no involvement, makes a mistake that causes an injury. When the lawyers look into that project, are they not going to grab the PE's to sue first? They wouldn't care and could convince a jury to not care that you had nothing to do with the problem. You get sued anyway.

I understand having the PE when you are working on your own or in a small company where you can have control over all potential safety issues, but it seems dangerous to be licensed in a large company. Sticking your neck out there to deflect blame from the company doesn't seem like a good move to me. PE = Sacrificial Lamb???

I may be naive here, and I am a firm believer in personal responsibility, but I am not one to volunatarily take blame for others mistakes. Please tell me if I am wrong here.

 

[buzzp]

zdas04,
Your example is not consistent with what I do. I do not specify cooling systems. Nor do I specify anything for use in such a building. I design products to be specified. You missed the point entirely. I think several people in here are missing out on one important point that I thought I made clear. Let me reiterate:
"In the design engineers world, the potential clients can simply evaluate their finished product for functionality, safety, reliability, etc. If it meets their needs then the deal is done. There is no need to verify they have a PE when the product will tell the tale. This is very clear to me and should be to all 'ENGINEERS'"

The clients in my case may be registered engineers or they may be a panel shop where UL approval is required. There is no need to repeat this later on I hope- NOT ALL ENGINEERS ARE CONSULTANTS-WE ARE THE ONES THAT MAKE THE PRODUCTS YOU SPECIFY. We have to get safety agency approvals for our products so if a fire occurs, you can run right to UL, CSA, TUV or whoever and say whats up? How come you can not understand this?

 

[brad]

miner-
I have a PE. I am only liable when I review something (and stamp it). I am not liable for others' work in my company that I did not oversee. Therefore, my PE does not make me more liable as long as long as I don't use it. However, it makes me very valuable if I need to use it.

In four years, I have never once used my stamp. I often joke that from an actual functional standpoint, my PE stamp amounts to nothing more than a cool book stamp (I get to emboss my engineering books). So why did I go to the trouble? Philosophical reasons as I suggested above, and secondarily what BobPE suggests--it opens up doors in some cases, and can free you from "indusry-exempt" servitude.

One note--when I think of the list of the smartest, most talented engineers I've worked with, there's not a PE in the top 10.

And to answer the original question--You're an engineer, I'm a Professional Engineer. You're in trouble if you "hang a shingle" stating you're an Engineer (as this act would imply Professional); but short of clearly-illegal acts, don't let anybody denigrate you because they chose (or more often were required) to get their PE.

Human nature is such that we all want to equate some prestige or moral superiority to our actions, especially when they are "above and beyond" the norm. I think this is behind some of the "non-PE bashing" by some of my fellow PE's (although not in this particular thread). Am I proud of getting my PE? I'd be lying if I said "no". However, I respect that most people who don't need one do not hold my reasons I had for getting mine. I don't hold that against them, nor view them as intellectually or morally inferior.

Brad