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.

 

[BobPE]

TheTick:

I know you were talking to buzzp, but I wanted to chime in, as usual...lol

All engineers have been exposed to thermo and should be able to figure it out for an exam. I think the ones you referenced would fit into a category like NICET, national institute for certification of engineering technicians. This is a fledgling group started for those that can not get a PE in the PE world but have valued skills to offer and the skills must be benchmarked. In my world..lol....those people would fit in NICET for industry...I dont think NICET is currently geared up for industry, but it could be....I like the idea of including everyone....

BobPE

 

[TheTick]

Still, if you take a person who has 20 years of tribal knowledge in mechanical design, and teach him theory for thermo and for mechanics, which knowledge is that person going to better assimilate? Which will give him a better comfort level (a definite advantage) on the test?

Good and evil: wrap them up and disguise it as people.

 

[BobPE]

Without 32 plus weeks of calculas based thermo, they will not be able to make the PE easily. With 20 years in practical experience, NICET would be achievable since its a testing agency that does not rely on college degrees and is based on experience...

This is kinda off the topic, but I get the feeling that the licensing system based on the PE with options for technicians may be a positive thing? Believe me, there is more talk here about it between engineers non-engineers that there is among the PE societies....

BobPE

 

[melone]

How does the saying go? The first priority of a bureaucracy is to justify it's own existence...

 

[brad]

The commentary about the PE being heavy on thermo and light on mechanics comes as a surprise to me.

I understand that the PE has changed a bit in recent years, but as I only sat for my exam 4.5 years back, I don't think my experience is too dated.

I chose NOT to study for thermo. For the EIT, one must have breadth of knowledge in all areas, including thermo. For the PE, one can (or could when I took it) pick and choose what problems to do (but greater depth is required). I passed the PE on the first try without solving any thermo or fluids problems (but I readily solved all 4 mechanics problems thrown my way). There were enough other categories that I didn't need to bother solving thermo.

Has the test changed in its format?

 

[buzzp]

I am a degreed engineer. It sounds like the Tick is referring to something for the technicians to prove their value as an engineer. I still would like to know if the PE licensing in any state has one for product design engineer (I.E. NOT power generation, transmission, or distribution). Anyone else help? Or what other fields does the PE encompass for an electrical engineer besides power? Excuse my ignorance on this but I am curious.

 

[IRstuff]

Not in California.

Although, the law is sufficiently broad enough to encompass any EE that so much as sneezes at an electron:

"6731.5. Electrical engineering defined
(a) Electrical engineering is that branch of professional engineering described in Section 6734.1 that embraces studies or activities relating to the generation, transmission, and utilization of electrical energy, including the design of electrical, electronic, and magnetic circuits, and the technical control of their operation and of the design of electrical gear. It is concerned with the research, organizational, and economic aspects of the above."



TTFN

 

[MintJulep]

In Pensylvania the state board has taken a position that the use of the word "Engineer" in a job title is unlawful if the individual holding the job is not a licenced PE.

The following is the text of a letter I wrote to my State Senator regarding this issue:

It has recently come to my attention that the Pennsylvania State Registration Board for Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors and Geologists has taken a position regarding the use of the title “Engineer” that in my opinion is inconsistent with the provisions of the Engineer, Land Surveyor and Geologist Registration Law; Act 367 as Amended December 16, 1992.

The issue deals with the use of the word “Engineer” in a job title by a person who is not registered and licensed as a Professional Engineer in the State of Pennsylvania.
The Board has taken the position that it is unlawful for a person to use the word “Engineer” in a job title such as “Project Engineer” if the person is not a registered and licensed Professional Engineer, even though that person holds a recognized Bachelor of Science or Master of Science degree in Engineering from an accredited engineering school.

The Board appears to be basing their position on Act 367, Section 3, paragraphs (a) and (b). These paragraphs do in fact prohibit the practice of engineering by individuals who are not licensed and registered to practice engineering in Pennsylvania. Paragraph (b) states that “A person shall be construed to practice or offer to practice engineering…by verbal claim, sign, advertisement, letterhead, card, or in any other way represents himself to be an engineer…or through the use of some other title implies that he is an engineer…or that he is registered under this act…”

However, the Board does not appear to be giving proper consideration to Act 367, Section 5, paragraph (a), which clearly grants an exception to the requirements of Section 3 for certain cases.

Section 5 reads: “Except as specifically provided in this section, this act shall not be construed to required licensure and registration in the following cases:

(a) The practice of engineering…by any person who acts under the supervision of a professional engineer, … or by an employee of a person lawfully engaged in the practice of engineering…”

If, under Section 3, actions such as a “verbal claim, sign, advertisement, letterhead, card, or in any other way represents himself to be an engineer” are sufficient to be construed as the practice of engineering, then the contrary must apply in relation to Section 5. That is, a person lawfully engaged in the practice of engineering under the conditions of Section 5 (a) must be able to make the claim that he is an “engineer”.

I respectfully ask you to investigate this matter, and should you agree with my opinion on this issue, to forward your opinion to the Board.

 

[BobPE]

MintJulip:

I dont quite understand what your questions is. Under section 5 of PA's laws, I am allowed to give engineering work to people working under me. This does not mean they need to be engineers nor would allow others to imply that they are engineers. It just means that they can perform engineering work for me as I see fit and they would not be breaking the law.

I think the part you are stretching in the laws is that that person doing work for me is not practicing engineering for themselves, but rather for the PE responsible. There is a big difference. I think that person would be able to say "I perform engineering for MR./Mrs. So and So, PE" but would not allow that person to say "Because I perform engineering work for Mr./Mrs. So and So, I am an engineer"

The laws are confusing I will admit, but they cannot be manipulated like that. I would be interested to hear about the response you get from the board.

BobPE

 

[buzzp]

I am still convinced a PE is worthless in some disciplines/careers. The laws on the books are written, for the most part, by politicians or lobbyists (PEs) that dont understand engineering or have their own agenda, respectively.

 

[Focht3]

[blue]BobPE[/blue] is clearly correct on this point. I do not see any conflict in the Pennsylvania statutes.

[blue]BobPE[/blue] also said in an earlier post:
The problem with the courts is that a PE is the one who most of the time determines infractions to PE laws. There are often times no PE's involved with a lot of engnieering cases, so no check or balance is available in many cases. For someone illegally practicing engineering, like providing engineering testimony in court, a knowledgable person on PE law has to catch them. This is, as you pointed out, often not the case. I have had to point law out to judges, they didn't even know it...Most lawyers have no clue of the PE laws, the ones that do are very succesful. The PE's are making progress in this area, but its considered after the fact of public safety by many and not a high priority.

Again, he is dead-on correct. I've caught out-of-state engineers practicing engineering in Texas without a license, and the lawyers who hired them were completely blindsided by their - and their experts' - mistake. The out-of-state experts were in a difficult position: they either withdrew from the assignment, or faced felony criminal prosecution by the Attorney General of Texas. (The violation was too flagrant for the AG to ignore.) I understand their client settled the claim rather than have his experts testify under oath about their violation of Texas law...





Please see FAQ731-376 by [blue]VPL[/blue] for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.

 

[BobPE]

lol buzzup, did we wake up on the wrong side of the bed today? Worthless is a pretty lame word...You might try saying that not having a PE for certain disiplines will not affect that persons job.

But being an engineer is not a job, it is a career. Having a PE has everything to do with your career. But you are right, it may not have anything to do for a job.

The laws on the books are written by professional engineers to protect public health and safety. They are pretty straight forward as far as most laws go. There is no hidden agenda (with exception of industry wanting the exempt status to keep engineers as a commodity) and the people writing the laws have a complete understanding of engineering.

BobPE

 

[buzzp]

I did not say this. I said 'career'. Do not put words in my typing (hehe).
"But you are right, it may not have anything to do for a job."

As far as engineering being a commodity. We are. To compare us to doctors and lawyers is generally not fair. Drs and lawyers go to college for a few more years (or longer) than your typical engineer. Why do you think PhD's have "Dr." in front of their name? If you do not want to be thought of as a commodity, then get your PhD.

 

[melone]

So PE's know everything about engineering????

 

[Focht3]

[blue]melone[/blue] opined,
So PE's know everything about engineering????

No. But to offer engineering services to the public - which specifically includes expert testimony - requires a professional license in the state in which the testimony will be provided.

The same applies to U.S. Federal courts - excepting that a P.E. from any of the 50 states is accepted when the dispute is located on Federal property. Otherwise, the state laws still govern. And Federal judges are a lot tougher on this issue (lack of an "appropriate" P.E. for someone testifying about engineering issues) for testifying experts than state judges -



Please see FAQ731-376 by [blue]VPL[/blue] for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.

 

[Focht3]

I'll bet that I can give you just as many horror stories about PhDs as you can provide about PEs. Actually, I have a lot of tales about both. Ask me sometime about the bulkhead failure in the Port of Freeport, Texas about 10 or 12 years ago -


While I do believe that a P.E. should be required to offer engineering services to the public, I am not so naive as to think that everyone with a P.E. is competent - any more than I believe that all PhDs are competent. I do believe that requiring a P.E. for those offering engineering services to the public is good public policy. And I think the number of valid reasons for allowing the industrial exemptions to continue is diminishing, not increasing, with time.



Please see FAQ731-376 by [blue]VPL[/blue] for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.

 

[BobPE]

LOL malone.....YES....dah....LOL (busting your ass I hope you realize....)

PE's write the laws....I don't think anyone really knows everything about engineering, but you know what, I would trust a PE before ANYONE else on engineering....

I have no problem with PhD's being PE or anyone else that can qualify for that matter. mechmann, let me know what projects you don't have PE's working on so I can avoid them in life...LOL


buzzp: I am not a commodity, I have my PE. People demand my services and not everyone can render the services I can in return. That makes me different than you as an engineer. We can argue lawyers and doctors, I went to school with a few of them and what they learned in 4 years doesnt even begin to cover my freshman year in engineering school. My doctor friends are actually engineering dropouts..... I still think you should be the same as me insofar as being an engineer and I think industry exempt employeers should be required to seek engineering from PE's. That way they cannot treat engineering as a commodity. In saying that, I also think we need to create ways to overcome the boundries set up by industry to make their commodities into PE's.

I agree with Focht3, not every PE is competant, not every engineer is competent, not every PhD is competant.

I do think that if we were to strenghten ourselves as engineers and use the PE as the benchmark as being an "engineer" we would all be better off for it. If we don't, the industry exempt engineer will become extinct here in the US. The PE will still be going strong though....


BobPE
BobPE

 

[leanne]

Ahem, PEs may write the laws (and, I imagine those writing them have both a PE & JD to get all the legal mumbo-jumbo aligned), but those laws have to be approved and enacted by our elected representative. And, we all know what kind of "training" our elected reps have in writing laws & adding or taking away info on a whim.

My doctor friends were enginering grads. The human body is a great work of engineering. A number of the engineering grads from my alma mater have gone on to med school because engineering provides a great foundation to build on for med school. I could have done so. I planned orginally to go to med school. I took the additional chemistry & biology courses required to apply for med school & by the time I finished my BSEE, I had decided I was too set in my ways to put up with the cr@p med school students have to tolerate while in med scool, then internship & residency.

We had SEAS shirts printed up one year that said the limit as the GPA approaches zero equals the Edwin Cox School of Business. Most of the business school students had no clue what that meant...and, many of them had higher GPAs than engineering students 'cause they got to take fluff instead of classes like digital signal processing...

 

[BobPE]

lol leanne, I still have my T shirt....it said----the limit as an engineers GPA approaches zero = business ....LOL......

BobPE

 

[MintJulep]

BobPE:

You wrote:

"Under section 5 of PA's laws, I am allowed to give engineering work to people working under me. This does not mean they need to be engineers nor would allow others to imply that they are engineers. It just means that they can perform engineering work for me as I see fit and they would not be breaking the law."

This is correct. However if you provided a business card to one of these people, and that card had the job title "junior engineer", or "associate engineer" etc., YOU would be in viloation of the PA board's interpretation of the PA law.

You also wrote:

"I think that person would be able to say 'I perform engineering for MR./Mrs. So and So, PE' "

Apparently not in eyes of the PA Board. This would be construed as "holding ones self out to the public as an engineer", and would be a violation of the PA Board's (IMO incorrect interpretation) of the PA law.

And you further wrote:

"but would not allow that person to say "Because I perform engineering work for Mr./Mrs. So and So, I am an engineer"

Again, the PA board appears to make no distinction between "I do engineering work" and "I am an engineer". They view both as a violation if you do not hold a PE.

The state senator that I sent my letter to responded that he agrees that the board's position is overly restrictive, however took no apparent further action.

For some PA law precidents:

http://www.pittsburghpe.org/Licensure/Garcia vs. Pa.pdf

http://www.acecpa.org/Info/February News.pdf