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]

mintjulep:

I am still missing your point. What I said holds true under PA law...I just dont understand your interpretations.

I would never give the title of engineer to anyone not holding a PE, in any state....I am not quite sure how you got that from what I said....

and finally the PA board makes a very clear distinction in people doing engineering work under the direction of a PE and what constitutes holding oneself out as an engineer, it was stated clearly in the PA laws you quoted.....

BobPE

 

[Focht3]

Here in Texas, you can't use the term 'engineer' on business cards, correspondence or company propaganda, er, marketing materials, unless you are licensed. Those unlicensed individuals who are working under the supervision of a P.E. and have begun the process of becoming licensed may add, "EIT" behind their name or otherwise indicate that they are an "Engineer in Training."

Even the phrase "Graduate Engineer" is unlawful.



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

 

[buzzp]

I can not imagine these laws. Your not trying to say that if I work for XYZ Corp and I am an applications engineer, design engineer, field service engineer, standards engineer, or engineering manager that I can not have the term 'engineer' on my business card because I don't have a PE? I don't buy it. If it is on the books it must be open for interpretation and I would love to see a prosecuter take up that case.
Bobpe, you wrote "People demand my services and not everyone can render the services I can in return. That makes me different than you as an engineer."
I agree that you can do some things I can't but there are some things that I can do that you can not and my dad can beat up your dad... no seriously you can sign an official state, county, city, or federal document as being certified by an engineer. But would you sign a final schematic of a sophisticated product as being safe, functional, and reliable? These are the sorts of documents design engineers sign. A lot is riding on approval of the final drawings as in your case. Your signature makes you personally legally liable (as I understand it-correct me if I am wrong). My signature makes me personally liable. Sometimes I might get legally involved but very seldom will my personal finances come into play. I might lose my job or gain a bad reputation in the industry or amongst my peers. I understand your point and I am fairly sure your remark was not meant as a snide remark. I thought it was a worth while topic, signatures.
I think all good engineers want to do the best job they can and I would like to think the personal liability issue would not make me do a better job. My liability is losing my job which is of great economic concern as well.

 

[GregLocock]

I'm in a similar position and am not a PE or equivalent. I work for a company that employs 8000+ people in this country(Australia). There are exactly 2 people who can sign off on one particular safety related compulsory test before we deliver a product to the public.

I am one of those two.

I think the reality is that those industries that don't build and validate designs using prototypes need PEs, whereas the exempt industries tend to prototype. The difference is that with the exception of tests like the one above, which is too dangerous to perform physically, all of our calculations are effectively rechecked many times in real life before the public gets hold of the product.


Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[MintJulep]

BobPE:

I understand that you agree with the PA Board's interpretation of PA Law.

I do not.

If I am allowed to do engineering work under the supervision of a PE, and have a degree in engineering, I should be allowed to say "I am and engineer". If I do not have a PE I should NOT be allowed to say "I am a professional engineer."

PA law says:

You will be construed to practice engineering if you have a card that has the word "engineer" on it.

Only licenced people can practice engineering, except that an unlicenced person can practice engineering if they are working under the supervision of a PE.

However, the Board considers it a violation if an unlicenced person, working under the supervision of a PE uses the job tile of "engineer".

There is a clear contradiction here.

If having a card that says "engineer" on it = being construed to practice engineering.

Then the contrapositive must also be true, that is

Lawfully practicing engineering must = being able to lawfully make the statement that you are an engineer.

Not a Licenced Engineer, not a Professional Engineer, but an engineer.

 

[BobPE]

ok mintjulip, I think I see your point. If you work under a PE, you are truly not doing engineering, the PE is and you are working for them.

My staff engineers have thier EIT's and their business cards just have their name on them. My card just has my name, an PE after it, no title. I guess I really missed what you were trying to say about titles...

I still think the laws are very clear unless you want to use the title engineer, and the law is preventing you. In your case you are a graduste in engineering. But look at another case, the high school degreed person that works for a PE doing "engineering" work. This person would also want to use engineer, and by no way should they be allowed. Being that you have an engineering degree, the title of engineer is within your reach, should you choose to reach for it.

This is what the laws are designed to protect the term from. For the graduste in engineering, the steps are clearly laid out to achieve the status of "engineer."

BobPE

 

[melone]

RobPE, please don't claim others work as your own....it really isn't very professional! If someone else did the work and submitted it to you, you might have gained responsibility of it, but did NOT do the work!!!!

 

[BobPE]

melone:

You are not a PE are you...That is the way it works...All my engineers work for me, do MY work, and are under my license...I really have no choice nor do they in it being my work. Having a PE is a complex complicated thing...difficult to understand....

BobPE

 

[electricpete]

Focht - you said in Texas one cannot use the term engineer as non-PE. But you can use it if you are in exempt role, as long as you don't try to sell services to the public...

Leanne has posted the link

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

"Section 20. EXEMPTIONS....

.. This exemption includes the use of job titles and personnel classifications by such persons not in connection with any offer of engineering services to the public, providing that no name, title, or words are used which tend to convey the impression that an unlicensed person is offering engineering services to the public;"

 

[OperaHouse]

Mother, "Hello Mrs. Smith, I want you to meet my son the electrical engineer."

Son, "Mom! How many times do I have to tell you. I'm not really an engineer."

If only for the mothers, we have to find something to call all these people. How about, "I studied technical stuff for four years but, hey, don't listen to me." Still working on something shorter. Engineer has crept into the vernacular like "Kleenex", so common that it lost its protected status. A state college gives you an engineering degree and the same state says you can't use the word engineer. I have always been comfortable with the use of the terms Registered Professional Engineer, EIT and Engineer. The only discussion I have encountered in my years prior to this was the use of the title engineer by those with less than a four year technical degree. There was a purge in a company I worked for that re titled them as specialists twenty years ago.

I have had the title "engineer" on my business cards in many forms over the years and have never been in jail for it. Most times it wasn't my option to pick the job title. While the law may be on the books, the state by this time has effectively lost the ability to legally enforce it by ignoring the rampant misuse in areas that it hasn't traditionally policed. Our Attorney General went after a car dealership that advertized a "used car factory." Seems he thought people would be confused into thinking that a 67 Valiant with dents and rust was a brand new car. A department like that out to have enough time to go after a few "engineers."

While some of these posts relate to sour grapes of ones station in life, it is a sad commentary that a technical field can't come up with a better standardized terminology. Till then it will have to be engineer.

 

[MRM]

These PE debate threads are always very interesting to read since there are naturally a lot of different opinions.

My thought(s) is(are) the following; clearly there is much ambiguity among PE's and non PE's (both with some kind of engineering degree) about what constitutes an "engineer." How can we reduce that ambiguity while at the same time holding public safety paramount?

It would appear the answer is to obtain some kind of license. Let me put it in really basic terms in the form of an analogy...when you take a class in school, at some point you are required to demonstrate your competence in the subject matter. You take a TEST, or usually several tests throughout the course. If you do well on the tests you take (combined with homework and all of the other "tools" that are used by your prof/instructor to verify your competence of the subject matter to the specified level) you can honestly say, "I passed ‘The History of the Belly Shirt and Crimped Hair 101'." No one can dispute that you have met the minimum criteria to understand the subject, because you successfully passed the course.

It really follows the natural order of life when you think about it. Did you have to take a test in order to obtain your driving privileges, i.e. get a license? Even though you already knew how to drive because your dad let you drive on rural roads before you had your license.

Did you not take countless exams throughout your high school and college careers in order to provide a basis to be promoted to the next set of challenges? Is your chiropractor licensed? Is your foot doctor licensed? Is your lawyer licensed? Is your real estate agent licensed? Is your BARBER licensed for crying out loud?? Please note that any of these individuals may be good OR bad at what they do. However, the least we can say is that they met the minimum requirements in order to provide those services to the public.

As you can see, many individuals you encounter every day are required to be licensed in order to provide their services to the public. Why is it that in a career such as engineering, where public safety is supposedly so important and lots can go awry in any design project, are there some that feel that they should be exempt from a formal licensing process? It really makes no sense if you approach the debate from a pragmatic point of view as I have just done.

Now if not having a PE doesn't seem to affect or impede your career, then don't get it. Who cares if you're called a 'technician' or 'Engineering Assistant'? It'll pay the same for you, right? However, if you choose not to obtain a license, the system should mandate that you work under a PE or group of PE's-those who have not only demonstrated, but FORMALLY demonstrated those minimum requirements necessary to provide those services. Just like my barber.

 

[electricpete]

"I can clearly see that licensing of drivers have made such a big improvement in quality of my commute. "

No doubt a sarcastic comment from the context. So if I understand you correctly, you think it would be better if there were no licensing process? I'm sure those 7-year olds on the highway wouldn't pose any threat at all ;-)

 

[MRM]

Ha, Ha! Allow me to restate that...

Fourth paragraph, second line,
substitute the word, knew with "knew" (in quotes)

 

[melone]

So if I employ lawyers, I am a lawyer....how about janitors? You are right, this is pretty difficult to undertand....all this common sense keeps getting in the way!

 

[electricpete]

I should clarify my comment was directed towards IRStuff's July 8th post. Coming directly after your post, MRM, I can understand how you thought it was directed towards you.

Now to stir up the pot a little more!

Getting a PE surely is a matter of personal preference (at least for those that can get a reference). There have been several excellent reasons articulated why some individuals night not want to pursue their PE:

1 - Some individuals have worked their whole career as an engineer but just can't find anyone legally qualified to publicly carry that title who is willing to vouch for their character and/or experience.

2 - Some lack any personal motivation to pursue licensure since it is not mandatory for their position/field.

3 – Some cannot pass the exam. That doesn't apply to any of the un-PE's here of course who have all expressed confidence they could ace the exam.

To address #2, I have one question:

Let's say you are an employer in an exempt industry evaluating external job candidates. There are of course many factors more important than PE in that evaluation: education, experience, personality, attitude, people skills, etc. But you know it is very tough to quantify many of those factors.

Education I believe is fairly tough to judge… different standard among schools… students have only to remember the material for 13 weeks or so. Honestly haven't you ever met an engineer that graduated from a good engineering program but seemed to remembered very little. I have met a few.

Experience… Do you want to rely on what the candidate tells you he did? Wouldn't it be nice to have a minimum chunk of that experience verified by someone a little more objective.

People skills/personality- the person proves they can act friendly, team-oriented, and properly focused during a 4-hour interview… what does it really mean?

So now you have two candidates on all of these mushy factors come out roughly even. One has a PE and one is an un-PE. Which would you hire? Think for a few seconds as you watch the picture:

(just stirring the pot… don't come down too hard on me).

 

[GregLocock]

OK, as someone who does interview external applicants, I'll take the bait.

I have NEVER asked whether someone is a member of a professional institution.

I usually ignore the referees.

If they are young I do check where they got their degree, what they specialised in, and what grade they got.

Then I ask them about the work they've done.

In another thread someone suggested I would be "the professor from Hell". I think I probably am the interviewer from Hell, on the other hand, I am rather proud of the people I have recruited.

Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[electricpete]

Good comments Greg. I can't argue with someone who has done the hiring.

One thing I feel the need to explain a little bit. Some may notice that the three reasons above for not getting a PE are painted in an unfavorable light. It is meant to suggest what goes through an employers mind when he considers why a person doesn't have a PE.

Glad Greg didn't take it in a bad way and hope others won't either.

Honestly I have nothing at stake in whether someone decides to get a PE or not. Was just trying to provide an argument.

 

[BobPE]

I agree GregLocock, being a member of a professional institution has nothing to do with anything but taking your mosny, like ASME, ASHRE, or NSPE...But none of the institurions have anything to do with licensure.

What would you do in the case that electricpete posted? I would hire the PE, hands down, and I would pay them more if they asked for it....

Just my thoughts...

BobPE

 

[sirmick]

The biggest hurdle and I think the most unnecessary is the references. If that was done away with, yes I would ace the PE test.

However, I don't think a PE should ever be necessary to do design or analysis work. Why? Because I believe it would stifle innovation. Anyone should be able to invent and market a product. As long as they or their corp. is willing to assume some reasonable liability.

 

[buzzp]

I was an engineering manager in a previous company. PE or no PE would not make any difference in a candidate. If they had equal everything (extremely rare) then it would be a coin toss. However, I can not imagine total equality amongst candidates. I do not entirely agree with the reasons electricpete gave for no PE. I might agree with them as long as you add 4. Industry exempt positions

MRM, your argument is nothing new to these threads. Testing is good but whats wrong with the EIT (FE) test for so called licensing? What other tests that you compared PE too require four years of experience? As far as the exempt feeling they don't need a license, look at my other comments. Also, chiropractic is not a career that requires license in several states. I could go down today and hang a sign in the window for chiropractic services with no problems. No license required, no degree required, no experience required.

The ones arguing for a PE seem to be in the disciplines where it is required (almost) to get a good paying job, civil, structural, environmental, dah, dah, dah. As pointed out by someone else, the license procedure was started with these disciplines in mind, not electrical. Think how many electrical devices you use a day and how many different products, positions there are for electrical engineers. Now count on one hand the different positions for the above mentioned disciplines.