Is it worth it to get a PE license? 27

[jadyn137]

Really… how worth is it to get licensed? All it says is you can take a test very, very quickly (at least in California). Is it really the mark of a professional? I do professional level work already, but don't really get any credit for it. I see my bosses just tearing their hair out on a daily basis regarding project troubles. But since they have the stamp, they have responsible charge. I ask myself: "Why should I want a PE if that's what happens? Is the extra pay and 'prestige' worth it?" I have to say an unequivocal no. How does a "P.E." after your name dictate to anyone what level of dedication you have? I have heard the terms such as advanced leadership and management skills, higher dedication, integrity, and creativity connected with getting a license. Personally, I think that is a load because I am more dedicated and infinitely more creative than most so-called professionals in my division. But, since I didn't pass a test that is more a measure of problem solving speed than that of problem solving skill, I am not allowed the label "P.E." You can keep it. You can keep your project problems, I will just estimate your project to within 3% of the lowest bid, write up your special provisions and provide plans that are clear and consistent with all the other documents. Why would any boss want to lose an employee who can do that for the "noble" cause of getting a P.E. license? So I can get a job higher up in the company and get bleeding ulcers and migraine headaches from dealing with the project problems? Or go to another company and get problems there?
For those of you who are doubters, I have taken the CA PE exam four times, but still have not passed the seismic portion because I am just not fast enough. I did practice exams, and finished with an average time of 3 hours with 70 percent correct. You're allowed 2 hours for the exam. Therefore, you see the dilemma. I can do the work, but not quickly. When the test becomes more of a test of skill than of speed, I might try again. But until then, I have given up on it. Besides if I were to take it again and pass, I would do what I could to not let anyone know that I passed it. They might expect more out of me than the 110 percent than I already give in my job.

 

[EddyC]

jadyn137,

My current employer went through a bad period recently where he had to lay off a bunch of engineers. I am pretty sure that my being a PE helped prevent myself getting axed. Lets take a look at some of the advantages of being a PE:

a) The studying process that you will need to do in order to pass the PE exam will make you a better engineer.

b) Being a PE will mean that you will get exposed to the rules, regulations and ethics that govern the profession.

c) Being a PE will allow you to refer any member of the public to the state roster of engineers, thereby PROVING that you are indeed an engineer.

d) You will be able to start a consulting engineering company, should you so desire.

There are other reasons, but these should suffice. You have touched on the fact that PEs will be asked by some employers and clients to approve work that is not within code. Along with the advantages of being a PE come the responsibilities. You can't have one without the other. Its like the rest of life itself. Get your PE as fast as you can. Don't let it wait until you are older like other people do. Its much harder later. Demonstrate to the profession and to yourself that you are a Professional. Get it ASAP.

 

[melone]

If it is much harder to get your PE, once you have real world experience, then what do that say about test? I thought the point of being a PE proves that you meet the minimum requirements for calling yourself an engineer. If the test is harder once you have proven yourself in the REAL world, then it sounds like a pretty silly test to me.

 

[BobPE]

melone:

You are right, the test is hard. Silly, well to those that can't pass it, maybe it is...

BobPE

 

[melone]

Perhaps you missed the point......

If the test becomes more difficult to pass, if you wait until your are PROVEN, seasoned engineer, then it sounds like a pretty stupid test!

Taking useless tests does not make you a better engineer!

 

[EddyC]

melone,

Studying for the PE killed a whole summer of weekends for me. But it paid off because I passed the exam. The studying process also made me learn new things and relearn old ones. The PE essentially certifies that the person learned a minimum amount of knowledge. We certify airplanes and welders and a whole bunch of other things. Why not engineers? Or are we merely supposed to take the word of learning institutions (in reality businesses) that their graduates are properly trained? How about the folks from 3rd world educational institutions? Folks from the 3rd world can easily bribe someone to make up a phony transcript or degree. The reason the PE exists is that colleges, businesses and employers cannot always be counted on to do the right thing. Every engineered product serves society in one form or another. Society therefore has the right to demand that the people who do engineering be properly trained. This is why society created the PE. Too bad that there are loopholes to it.

 

[BobPE]

melone:

What usless tests are you refering too? I would agree usless tests make nobody a better anything...

Getting a PE requires one to take a test, and say what you want about that...Having a PE does not make you engineer better, but it most certainly does make one a better engineer.

I guess my thought on the longer one waits is say an engineer engineers paper bags for 20 years, and is very good at it, then decides to get the PE. The process will be harder for this individual becuase most of the material on the exam will have little or nothing to do with paper bag engineering. No matter how proven the engineers real world esperience is, there will be subject matter the engineer may not have used for years and they will have to come up to speed. Now if you are saying that this real world experience trumps what other skills an engineer may not have been using, then I disagree with you opinion that this is a stupid test. An engineer with a PE is required to perform engineering, of all kinds, that they have demonstrated competency in. If I had that 20 year paper bag engineer (non-PE) vrs. a 10 year engineer with a PE to design a project, I would put the PE on as lead.

I know we have spoken on this topic in the past and I respect your right to an opinion, but your use of stupid, useless, and silly...well seems like your slipping away from the positive value of the forums here...

BobPE

 

[melone]

I am sorry you feel that way. It was never my intention to track towards negativity. I fail to reconginze how passing one test can make you a better engineer. Graduating from an accredited university should be all of the proof that you need.

 

[APH]

Well...yes and no. If I take the test, passed it, use it often, and keep updating my analytical skill, then I am (in one sense) a better engineer. On the other hand, if I take the test, passed it, rarely used it, and don't update my analytical skills, then I'm no better engineer.

You are right "passing" the test doesn't make you a better engineer, but the "process of passing it" will. I'm taking a PE because I would like to refresh my memory for the knowledge that I had learned at school. I don't need it for my job, but for my own amusement, I'll do it, and maybe...just maybe, once I have PE licence, I could have more number crunching job that I love more than chasing parts and leg work!..

APH

 

[EddyC]

melone,

When you say that graduating from an accredited university is all that is needed to prove competency, you are saying that private enterprise decides who is competent. The states have decided that engineering competence is their area of responsibility. The licensing process also allows people to get licensed from a variety of educational and experiential backgrounds, provided that they can meet the qualifications. Lets also remember that licensing laws were put in place in the 1930s in the USA. We're talking about a process that's almost 70 years old. In reality, after all this time, everybody should be trying to get licensed. The sad fact is that licensing is poorly promoted. People find out about its value too late in life. But the folks who are visiting this forum have become aware of its virtues. They should now be proactive and pursue licensure.

 

[BobPE]

An engineer with a PE can engineer for anyone, and engineer without a PE is very restricted as who they can practice engineering for.

The worst thing an engineer could say, in my opinion, is "No, I can't help you because I have no PE." Having a PE therfore would make for a better engineer.

Good luck APH, let us know how you make out...It is well worth the effort.

BobPE

 

[JAE]

melone - I'd like to add my two cents to your comment about tests not making someone a better engineer.

I agree with you that the test doesn't do a whole lot for the person other than what is gained by all the preparation for the test...that does count for something doesn't it?

But...

The test does allow a community to verify a person's competence to practice engineering and this is a good thing. It does tend to weed out those who aren't yet prepared.

Also - and here's my main point:

Graduating from an accredited university is NOT ENOUGH to make someone ready to be a stand-alone engineer. In the US there is the requirement of 4 years experience under a licensed engineer. This is where the former student takes out his box of tools (tools gained in school) and begins to learn how to use them in practice to solve problems and turn ideas into reality.

So while you are correct that a test isn't an end-all for making a good engineer, your assertion that schooling is enough is totally off base.

 

[Maui]

I have worked as an Adjunct Associate Professor in Engineering at Syracuse University for the past consecutive eight years. I also work full time as a Senior Metallurgist for a specialty steel manufacturer. In this capacity I am able to observe and to some extent influence what skills the students have the opportunity to acquire during their tenure at the University. I also realize what skill sets many of them lack that will be needed in order to function effectively in industry. It was stated above that

I fail to reconginze how passing one test can make you a better engineer. Graduating from an accredited university should be all of the proof that you need.

In my opinion, it would be a mistake to allow the universities to establish the criteria necessary for determining who is qualified to be a Professional Engineer. In fact, I believe that you would find most of the professors in these universities are not registered Professional Engineers themselves, since relatively few of them have ever held a job outside of an academic setting. They certainly don't teach an engineer eveything that he needs to know to function effectively in industry. I'm sure that most of us have heard stories about mechanical engineers with their BS degrees who didn't know how to use a set of micrometers properly. The PE is used to determine if someone has the engineering knowledge and working experience to make the proper judgement in a real world setting where safety is of paramount importance. Studying for this very difficult exam may expose the engineer to concepts that they did not encounter during their education, and will also allow him or her to brush up on topics that may not have been used much since college. This type of review may be what Bob was referring to in terms of making someone a better engineer. Graduating from an accredited engineering program does not guarantee the competence of the engineer. His ability to perform the necessary work safely and effectively should be evaluated independently of the university from which his degree was awarded. The PE exam provides us with the means to perform this type of evaluation.

 

[melone]

I must be crazy. I soaked up the information I was taught in school because I may need it for my future career. I learned about physics, electrical principle, mechanical principles, etc., and found the entire process to be beneficial for my future. Perhaps I was under the mistaken impression that people actually remembered what they were taught in school.

I will admit, that the apprenticeship portion of the PE process is a good idea. However, having seen how easy it is for an engineer to get a passing mark from a superior, I still have reservations as to its effectiveness.

 

[GregLocock]

I don't think anyone was saying that unis should decide what the appropriate qualification is. The key phrase is that it should be an "accredited degree course". That degree course should only be accredited if it includes the correct academic and technical content, and reaches a high enough standard. That accreditation (in the USA and Canada) should be given by the PE state association, and in an ideal world only courses that were so accredited could be called engineering degrees. Note that it is not the institution that gains accreditation, it is the degree itself. An unwise selection of papers inside a given faculty could still result in a non-accredited degree.

I'm in two minds about the value of a further, quasi academic, test. It seems to me that it only has real value if it is taken at the end of the 4 year EBIT, when refreshing the basics would be of value in the light of real world experience. I haven't seen a test paper, so I don't know if it works like that. I certainly don't see that it has much value if taken concurrently with, or soon after, the original degree.



Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[JAE]

School is good (Animal House - Knowledge is Good)....

But for many practicing engineers (at least in Structural, Civil, Private practice mech and elec) when you come out of school you realized just how little you really know.

Academia teaches you a lot...but my own experience, even after an MS degree, was that I still had a long way to go. I have worked with many new graduates on my own staff over the years and I see this same effect repeated....on-the-job learning is vastly more involved than learning the equations on the chalkboard.

Practically everything said in this post has been broad-brush generalizations but I would stand firm on the value of experience after school as more of a determinant in the quality of the engineer than the schooling.

 

[EddyC]

Greg,

The accreditation process in the USA is separate from the government. In Canada, accreditation is indeed by the government. This is why in the USA the PE exam is technically-based while in Canada the PEng exam is ethics-based.

 

[BobPE]

melone:

What do you mean by your statement: "I will admit, that the apprenticeship portion of the PE process is a good idea. However, having seen how easy it is for an engineer to get a passing mark from a superior, I still have reservations as to its effectiveness."

Who is the superior you refer to? Would this be the PE exam grader? A boss? Or someone else that governs engineering? I am just curious and I am not trying to be a jerk...

BobPE

 

[mpparent]

$500 dollars each time the PE rolls around?? You pay your up front fee to take the test, and then a renewal fee. I don't know about where you are, but for 2 yrs., my renewal fee was $40, and to take the test was $50. Pretty cheap I'd say...

Mike

 

[jadyn137]

Mike, what year was that and where the @%Q$#!! are you? $50 sounds like a load of high grade manure to me.

For California?

California Test Fee: $275
Hotel : $135 to stay in a good part of Sacramento, because I don't like being shot.

Gas: $50
Food: $40

Total Cost $500

But, since I have already submitted my fee for taking the exam, and can't take it back. I guess I just better take it.

 

[BobPE]

Sounds like a visa commercial...LOL

Exam: 275

A night away from the family: 135

enough fuel to cover getting lost finding the hole in the wall exam site: 50

Passing the PE: Priceless...

LOL

BobPE