Interesting facts about licensure 3

[BobPE]

I pulled this information from another web site to share. Its is over a year old and really highlights the state of the profession....

Engineering Approx. # Approx.# Percent
Discipline Engineers Licensed Licensed
=========== ========= ======== ========
Civil 360,000 160,000 44
Mechanical 395,000 91,000 23
Electrical 803,000 73,000 9
Chemical 180,000 15,000 8
Industrial 133,000 11,000 8
Agricultural 40,000 5,000 13
Mining/Metals 30,000 5,000 17
Other 259,000 40,000 15
Total 2,200,000 400,000 18

What does this mean? Well, my opinion is that there is a great disparity in engineering. When you compare this to over a 95% licensure for Arichitects, you can see were we are going. I think this turns engineers into a commodity to be bought and sold in the open market. Licensure is our strongest defense against lower wages and dilution of the profession from non-engineers. Everyone questions the validity of the PE, and from the information its no wonder why..... The powers to be have us infighting so bad that we are losing site of the main tool we have to empower ourselves. This is primarilly due to the industrial exemption in my opinion. With percentages like this, our jobs as a commodity can easily be shipped overseas, negotiated, traded, freely eliminated, replaced by computer programs, etc, etc etc.

Just my thoughts...

BobPE

 

[PSE]

BobPE

Some interesting data. Things like this had prompted me to start the thread in this forum on "revising" the PE process. One of the big contributing factors may take place back at the university level. I think students should be made aware of PE licensure in all Engineering Disciplines. I for one did not know or hear about the PE until I was already working in industry for a number of years (I am one of the "Industrial Exemptions&quot. Another fun thing from my standpoint is that the Engineering Curriculum that led to my degree turns out not to be ABET certified so under the laws of the state in which I currently work, I cannot become licensed even if I tried! I have subsequently contacted my alma-mater to bring this to their attention. I may end up involved in efforts to certify the curriculum so others may benefit (the mechanical and electrical curriculums there are ABET certified). If this happens, I might consider trying to get licensed though currently I feel that there has been no impact on my career whatsoever for not having a PE. (It has also been a very long time since I have had to deal with calculus based problems etc that show up on the exams). I believe you are right, the industrial exemption has mitigated the benefits that a PE can offer.

Regards and good post!

 

[NickelMet]

I agree with PSE, that is some interesting data and a good discourse.

I am one of the few PE's in my chosen field (at least in the local area). And I agree that the industrial exemption has played a big part in decreasing the number of PE's overall. My previous life in the metals industry is a direct reflection of that. Very few metallurgical PE's in that industry, even though they are flooded with metallurgical/material science engineers. My previous company though more highly of PhD engineers than of PE's (and even BS/MS degreed engineers). (But that's a different topic altogether.)

Personally, I knew of the PE long before graduation and had my goals set on it. I believe it to be a very beneficial part of my engineering career. And, at times, I think it has added to the peer-to-peer respect when networking situations have been available.

One last thing, my personal opinion is that a PE is an engineer who has decided beyond all doubt that ethics, accountability, civic responsibility, and professionalism play a large part in their career. Go to the NSPE website and read the "Engineer's Creed" and "Engineer's Code of Ethics". Again my opinion, but I know that not every engineer follows those. But as a PE, I must follow those.

My 2-cents.

 

[GregLocock]

Those numbers don't surprise me.

The fact is that licensing is inappropriate in many industries because you cannot take personal responsibility for the performance of a system that is designed and redesigned by a large group of people with different aims.

Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[BobPE]

GregLocock:

I agree with you on industry, but it is only because that is what non engineers wanted. Can you imagine how much better industry and engineers would be if there were a requirement for a PE? That would take the bean counters out of the equation and turn the industries into profit making enterprises. The only problem is, the trial lawyers are against this. Just recently in Texas, the state licensing board tried to control the use of the term engineer. To no surprise, industry lawyers fought to shoot it down. What did they have to gain??? Money in law suits from industry....If someone were responsible for the diesgn outside of the company control (the PE) then things would be done right and the lawyers would be out in the cold. However, you look at the lawyers, they have their license structure down to the T. I can not even begin to count the times that I have been acused of dispensing legal advice from interpreting specifications for clients. They are very active in protecting their world, and they take great pride in keeping ours at bay from the most important people, ourselves.....

BobPE

 

[NickelMet]

Greg:

While I agree with your statement from a BROAD standpoint, I'd have to disagree with you implying that an individual couldn't take responsibility. OF COURSE AN INDIVIDUAL CAN - AND SHOULD - TAKE RESPONSIBILITY! (Especially if you are being held accountable to the situation.) You should take responsibility for those actions you are directly accountable for.

Take as an example a process that converts corn to ethanol. Let's say the plant was designed and built 10-years ago. You just started 2-years ago. Are you responsible for the fact the corn transport mechanisms are undersized? No. But you may be accountable for realizing that fact and making the recommendations to improve the process. And, if your recommendation is approved and gets funded, you should consider yourself responsible for making sure the new design is correct. You mention system performance. Surely as the "new" engineer, you can't be responsible for the designed performance or past performance (prior to coming onboard). But, depending on your duties, you may be accountable for the performance now and you should feel responsibility for any actions you take that improve or take away from it.

Just remember "accountability" and "responsibility" are not interchangeable terms. Yet, both apply to any job regardless of the passage of time.


BobPE:

Great thread buddy! I like your example about the Texas situation. Here in Kentucky they tried a similar law quite a few years ago in trying to pin down the title "engineer". I think they are still trying. (I try to stay out of politics.)

Enjoy ya'll
Just my 2-cents!

 

[GregLocock]

I suppose I was thinking about the non-enviable position of say Chief Crash Engineer in a car company. The buck stops with him. Yet the system he signs off on is compromised at every step of the way. Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[PSE]

Remember folks, the design is only part of the equation. You have to make the product too. Flaws in the production process down even to the operator "oops" level can yield field failures unrelated to design. A PE signed off design and a PE signed off manufacturing procedure still may not prevent potentially harmful product from being released into the public sector. By all means take responsibility for what you are accountable for but remember that your are not the end all. Recognize that the company is still likely to take the hit in a lawsuit over a product failure. If I may play devil's advocate. From a potential company viewpoint, if they are going to be the ones taking a hit, then why would they "need" a PE? What benefit to the company is there? Technical competency may be shown in the degree level attained and previous work history. Ethics are evaluated with background and reference checks. If I had two candidates of equivalent talent one licensed and one not, If they were asking equivalent salaries then I would likely go with the PE. If the PE wanted a higher salary, they would likely not get the position. The benefit of having PE's is going to have to be "sold" to corporations in order to have any impact on the industrial exemption. By the looks of things, it will be a hard sell. Don't get me wrong though, I do believe the effort worthwhile.

Regards

 

[PBroad]

Just to add a (Canadian) 2c worth.

Only partial licencing happens when employers force, coerce engineering grads to become "employee engineers" and opt for an "industrial exemption".

Not every area has one, but when this happens we have incidents like the West Pharmaceutical Services plant, Love Canal, Bophal (India). Even though it is not professional engineers who create these gross public endangerments we are tthe ones who get the blame. It is time that every PE licensure body abolish industrial exemptions, can you imagine a doctor refusing to join a state medical association?

Be responsible and we all gain respect. Allow a few half qualified grad engineers to do the job of true engineers and we may as well all retire.

 

[rbcoulter]

I agree with BobPE and PBroad.

 

[BML]

Just some input from a young, non-licensed but industrially-excepted engineer...

I would love to get my PE license. I believe that it is a step that many more engineers should take. However, I'm still not sure if I can even become licensed in my particular state (Michigan) since there are virtually no licensed PEs in my discipline (industrial/manufacturing) to work for (see the chart in the first post). I've heard that references need not come from licensed engineers (again, that industrial exception), but if that avenue falters, I have essentially no recourse. It wouldn't matter if I took a strong moral and ethical viewpoint to my work, and that I might be a technically good and precise worker; no PE boss for me might mean no PE license. And I have no intentions on changing employers just to work for a licensed PE.

So given my own personal situation, I think that more engineers that are in the beginnings of their careers would attempt to obtain licensure if (1) licensing boards agree that simply working for a licensed PE does not necessarily yield higher-quality experience, and (2) there were more "advertising" for how and why one should seek PE licensure, especially in the non-standard disciplines.

Personally, I will probably wind up sitting for the exam sometime soon. (I have the education and years of experience covered.) My only problem is verifying with the state that my references from non-licensed engineers will be accepted. Until then (and after then, as well), I'm going to continue to work and act the way I always have - as if I were already a licensed engineer.

[Off my soapbox now.]

BML

 

[brad]

I am Michigan PE and was industrial exempt, and to my recollection (I obtained mine in '99) you had to have 5 recommendations, with 2 or 3 from PE's. I think that there may have been a requirement that some of those 5 recommendations were coworkers but I don't believe that the PE's had to be coworkers. I recall this because it seemed to fly against what I thought was a requirement (that of working for a PE).

I ended up having enough PE's who I worked with, but my backup plan was to talk with my professors from undergrad (and in fact one professor was very happy to recommend even though I had my PE quota already). Especially in Michigan, there are a plethora of university professors with PE's. If this doesn't pan out, you may want to join the Michigan Society of Professional Engineers. You don't need a PE to join. You could then get to know some people who may be willing to vouch for you.

Ask around. When I did, I was surprised how many people I knew had PE's (even in an exempt company). The big purpose (at least my impression) for the PE recommendations was that there was somebody who had already passed the process who could vouch for your character and/or ability.
Brad

 

[TurboTag]

I almost started another thread on this very topic because it wasn't easy to find. I am glad I did find it. I have already been approved to take my PE exam in Michigan and will do so in October (unless another project sends me overseas again). I joined the NSPE and MSPE several years ago because I believe in supporting the engineering profession.

My biggest gripe is the "industry exemption." While my degree is in aerospace engineering I work in the automotive industry primarily as a manufacturing engineer. My favorite analogy relates to the firestone tire incident.

Defective (whether by design or process) Firestone tires went on several hundred thousand vehicles. The building the tires were manufactured in required a PE to sign off on it. This protected several thousand employees. But no one was required to sign off on the design or the production process for the tire. Which was more important to public safety?

Doctors and lawyers have done an incredible job protecting their profession. Engineers on the other hand have let business run rough shod over us. PSE made a valid point on why should the company care if it still can take a "hit" for a product. Hospitals still take hits for malpractice and they are still required to use accedited dotors. Why don't companies write their own contracts or represent themselves in court, why use lawyers?

I really find it appaling that to offer "engineering services" in MI you have to have a PE. There is supposed to be "oversight" by this PE. There are many contract houses in Detroit with thousands of engineers and I would bet that only a very small number of those engineers have any idea who the PE is that is overseeing there work. It just doesn't happen. So what is the point of demanding that a company have a PE to get a license.

Until engineers stand up and show the public the safety concerns and comparisons to doctors and lawyers. Until they demand legislation that reinforces the engineer title we will not get the pay, respect, and legal standing this profession deserves.

My 2-cents,

Tim

PS, I've worked for some of those contract houses and I've worked at a large automotive manufacturer that uses 2 letters for their name.

 

[brad]

Tim,
I'm in agreement with your general feelings. However, I am curious as to your opinions on NSPE/MSPE. I was also a member of NSPE and MSPE (in fact, you and I have likely been in the same building at some point in time given our backgrounds). I quit MSPE/NSPE because I felt that these organizations (especially MSPE) aspired to little more than a Political Action Committee, given the information which I received via mail and email. I even voiced this concern. My reasons for joining were the same as yours. I philosophically believe that the PE needs to be given the same weight as the Bar or Medical Boards, and this seemed the only organization that would do that.

I twice voiced my frustration to MSPE regarding my issues, and was never given a response. I still keep my PE current, and NSPE still sends me junk mail and credit card offers. However, I'm disheartened. I'm curious if your experience has been better. I wanted to believe in this group but they gave me no reason to.

Brad

 

[BobPE]

bradh:

You are not the only one. I firmly believe in the PE, but those PE groups are a bunch of self centered individuals that want nothing to do about making it easier for non PE's (industry exempt) to enter the club. I voiced the same opinions and concerns to them and I now ignore them like they did me. I am not a member of any of the PE orginizations and I dont have thier credit card!!!! LOL I think its time we form a real PE orginization because I think all the established ones are out of touch and that is how we got to where we are today, in a world of hurt!!!!


BobPE

 

[TurboTag]

Brad and Bob,

I understand your frustration with NSPE and MSPE. It seems like for the last few years their main concern was with increasing membership. Which means a large amount of their time was spent trying to explain why all the other engineering disciplines should join. I personally thought they should be going after more legislations such as in Texas, defending basically the laws that are already on the books. They also should be going after the "industry exemption." I will be the first to admit there are jobs out there that have a requirement that the employee be an engineer, that require little if any engineering ability. But there are many positions that demand the person be a trained engineer and they have someone in the position that has been promoted 2 levels beyound their ability. This is especially rampant in the Automotive industry. I want NSPE and MSPE to be political in a sense. They need to go after the legislation and quit playing patty cake with the politicians. WE also need to get more like minded members in to the state professional societies and take positions of responsibility to help advance what I consider common sense.

Tim

 

[brad]

Here was my impression of MSPE:
"I did my time and am now in the exclusive club of PE's. I will now do my best to argue for a monopoly for me and my fellow club members". This merely serves to advance the current club members. This does nothing to be inclusive and encourage wider adoption of the importance of the PE.

We will not break industrial exemption until there is a critical mass of those who believe as a principle that some form of "registration" is important. And we will never gain such a critical mass with the attitude which I perceive these organizations hold.

I have worked with many non-PE's who are exceptionally more qualified than I. I guarantee that I have learned more from non-PE's than from the PE's whom I've known. Yet the laws pushed by these organizations explicitly argue "PE-good, nonPE-bad". I have no problem with the FE and PE exams being difficult--they should be. I have a problem with the arrogance that comes with the attitude "If you have a PE, you're qualified; if you don't, you're clearly not".

Brad,PE (just so there's no confusion)

 

[PSE]

Brad, Turbo,

As I also work in Michigan (have been for 15+years) and you guys are making me wonder as to whether or not I even want to bother with the PE. I get too many credit card offers as it is! I did notice that Michigan has recently added approved certifiers for individuals holding degrees from non ABET curriculums. I honestly cannot say whether or not that I have even worked with a PE in my career here. Nice to know there are some out there somewhere. Seems like PE's and their appropriate organizations really need to promote some "brand" awareness. I don't think there will be tremendous success in legislating 80-90% of the engineering populace out of jobs because they work under the industrial exemption and are not PE's.

Regards

 

[BobPE]

PSE:

Without a doubt, you want to get your PE. Don't even think twice about it. It is the tool that will validaye your industry exempt experience outside of industry and gives you a lot more opportunity. I look at the industry exempt engineer as a slave to industry in that their experience is not portable with the individual, rather its a comodity that industry controls. Having that PE makes you your own person as an engineer.

The organizations that PE's belong to are a product of themselves. Most of the engineers that belong to them couldnt find their way out of a paper bag, and that is ok with them. The key to those orginizations is that they need more real engineers and from the statistics that I originally posted, these engineers are tied up under the industry exemption.

A PE is the most valuable tool an engineer can have and any engineer (or anyone else for that matter) that tells you diffenently is a fool.

Get your PE and make a difference!!!

BobPE

 

[brad]

I wholeheartedly agree with BobPE. Please do not misinterpret my frustration with the engineering organizations to equate with frustration with getting a PE. It was not obtaining my PE that got me the credit card app's; it was joining NSPE that got me them, along with all sorts of other frustrations.

I yearn for a society that truly believes in what many of us have expressed and is willing to put its money there (if there were such a society that I was viable they would have my membership dues tomorrow).

Brad