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]

BobPE & buzzp,

BobPE is indeed correct that a person cannot hold themselves out to the public as an engineer, unless they are a PE, depending upon the particular state law. That being said, most "design persons" are employees and therefore never need to be PEs. Essentially these "design persons" are doing engineering, although they cannot legally identify themselves an engineers to the public. They are, however, allowed to use the engineering title within the confines of their employer's facility. buzzp is also correct that the most illustrious companies, producing the most leading edge engineered products are exempt from utilizing PEs. buzzp is also correct that non-PEs routinely identify themselves as engineers to members of the public. The states generally ignore this as long as it applies to industry employed "design persons". This is indeed a conundrum. I have had the occasion during the course of my employment to meet individuals who identified themselves as engineers. I later found out that they had little design experience and were in reality construction people. Why did they therefore call themselves engineers? In order to persuade property owners to unknowingly give permission for them to engage in nefarious acts. How do I oppose this type of behavior? Easy. I tell the property owner to look up the person in question on the state profession roster. If they are a PE, they will be on the roster. This roster is the only realistic way that a member of the public can identify who is an engineer. The vast majority of "design persons" that I have met are people of integrity. But there will always be a small group of troublemakers who have no reservations about causing problems for others. This is why engineer licensing laws were created. Sad to say that there are so many loopholes from them.

 

[JAE]

I would weigh in that EddyC is correct. I don't see a lot of industry engineers trying to offer their services out to the public, though.

 

[mshimko]

Two points are recently being discussed:

1. Grades on a resume: Grades are very important to have on a resume, IF you are a new or pending graduate seeking your first position as an engineer. Once you have that first couple of years experience under your belt (and documented on your resume), there's no need to provide a GPA. Experience and capabilities is what's important; but when you have no experience, grades become the factor often used to compare candidate A to candidate B to determine who to interview.

2. Use of "engineer". It's a FACT that the term "Engineer" means many things to different people. An "Engineer" could be used to describe ANY of the following:
a - Steam plan operator
b - Trash Collector ("Sanitation Engineer"
c - Train operator (perhaps the original "engineer"
d - Technicians preparing drawings
e - Degreed engineers working on a project
f - Registerered Engineer who takes the responsibility for the engineering calculations being presented to the customer.

The above are ALL common usages for the term "Engineer", and saying that you are an "engineer" for any of the above is not only common usage, it's "politically correct".

The legal issues are involved only when you present yourself as one responsible for engineering design (with many exceptions, such as some government work), and/or apply a seal.

 

[BobPE]

JAE:

One thing I would add is that the states do no policing, that is left to the engineers in the profession, and if anything is weak, I think this part is the worst offender. I have, and more importantly will, turn in those "engineers" that hold themselves out as engineers from industry, government, or other areas of practice. Their work takes the form of engineering reports to public agencies (any public agency from consume product safety to OSHA), presentation to public agencies, court testominy, etc. This is all engineering and subjects the practioner to judgement under the engineering laws.

I would agree with you buzzp, my knowledge of the industry exemption is weak...and I would say the your knowledge of it is as well...there is no formal standard for the exemption and the rules seem to be made up along the way and to meet needs of the present moment, not the long term interests of the profession. A system like that does not interest me, only its impact to the engineering profession and the puiblic.

I do not doubt the experience and skill on exempt engineers, that is not my rant, my feeling is the PE does not make you engineer better, it makes you a better engineer.

The law is the law, and getting cought is a terrible thing to have happen to ones career. We have to be very careful on advocating illegal practice as the consequences are far reaching and mostly unknown to us posters here. I don't think that is fair to build consensus here in a semi-public arena against established laws.

Buzzp: I am an engineer, not a consultant...and I think you are thinking the same way as you want to be an engneer and not an industry exempt. Where we work should have nothing to do with who we are as engineers. Taking control of our profession would make our profession stronger in the long run, and it is my opinion that this is a nobel goal.

I am not a title person and using engineer titles in the confines of business is fine...But when those titles and the associated practice of engineering make it out of the confines of the business, then these engineers enter a world that I take very seriously.

I obsiously have a differing opinion that you buzzp, and that is OK. I think the only way people can become informed is understand our opinions then search for the facts themselves.

take care...

BobPE

 

[EddyC]

Here's a good one for you folks:

A set of drawings were brought over to me about a year ago by my employer. He wanted me to PE stamp them. They were a design for power plant steam piping. The project was led by a PE manager who was not licensed in the state where the power plant facility was located. He delegated (and I mean delegated) the design to an individual who was not licensed in any state. This individual did the design "by eye" and "by feel". He did absolutely no stress analysis calculations. He did not even try to read the ASME B31.1 Code. My review of the design revealed that it did not meet code. When I explained this to the designer, he stated that the client was aware of the shortcomings of the design and consented to them. I had to explain to this "engineer" that state law requires us to conform to code regardless of what a client consents to. He said that he did not know the law (and probably didn't care). I refused to stamp the drawings and told the other PE in our office who was licensed in that particular state that he shouldn't either.

 

[JAE]

BobPE - Good post - and I would add that in the US - each state has different degrees of emphasis on the Engineer label - some are very strict and some are not.

I agree that the profession of engineering is weakened by the fact that there are so many "kinds" of individuals out there laying claim to the title and there are many places where the use of the term is not enforced or non-existent.

We are also fragmented into various societies, ASCE, NSPE, CASE, PCI, AASHTO, ACI, AISC etc. with their own agendas. It would be great if we all unified somehow, but I doubt that will happen in the near future.

 

[buzzp]

My comments are from real life experiences. I don't know if it is illegal for me to use engineer in my title (my guess is not). I do know it is illegal for me to offer services to the public or to pass myself off as a registered engineer to the public.
Bob, I don't want to be a consultant (licensed engineer). I prefer industrial exempt work (more interesting to me). I said I am in a position where the PE would help advance my career a little quicker than without it. However, where I am at there is pretty much a cap on engineers wages, with or without the PE. With the PE, I can reach this cap one year earliar than I can without it. Not real beneficial but it helps.
I am not opposed to the PE at all. I think it is necessary for those engineers offering services to the public. I do not think it is necessary for all engineers to be registered simply because it serves no purpose in the industrial exempt world. Being an electrical, there are many, many, many opportunities to be creative, challenged, and on the verge of some technological break through (ok maybe not that many on the verge of some breakthrough). But you see these new products and new technologies do not generally come from a PE (some do of course), they generally come from some person that holds a BS or MS. I guess these people would not be classified as engineers by some peoples perception of engineer. But there is a need for these types of engineers as there is for engineers capable of designing an electrical system for a building or designing a substation.
Okay, I am rambling on and will shut up and will, once again, agree to disagree with Bob, although I think we are really saying the same thing concerning engineers and the public - they must be licensed. However, I believe our disagreement is regarding me handing out business cards to other engineers, salesman, with the word engineer on it. I don't know if it is illegal (as I said, I doubt it) but it is widely accepted as standard practice. If it is a law on the books in some states, does not mean it is enforced nor should it be. Heck, some states have some very ridiculous laws on the books (sure everyone has heard of some classic examples although I can not remember any right now). See

http://www.stupidlaws.com/

http://www.dumblaws.com/

Visit these sites and you will see many examples of dumb laws that no prosecuting attorney in their right mind would ever try to bring to court.

 

[ghghghgh]

So, to summarize for raffeallo's original question:

"I'm considering becoming a consultant, mechanical and machine design sorts of things. Does one legally need a PE in this situation?"

If you're offering to design widgets for Boeing or Caterpillar, probably not, but if you're offering to design a pump system for a local municipality, definitely.

 

[BobPE]

ghghghgh:

If you are offering engineering to Boeing or Cat or for any other entity public or private, and you do not work for them, chances are it is illegal as governed by your state.

buzzp: I know where you are coming from. I worked for indusrty, and I am aware of that side of our practice. I understand their points of view, but I look towards the common good of all engineers in my opinions, consultants included.

BobPE

 

[EddyC]

Here's another situation that I ran into regarding licensing:

I have had to testify on behalf of clients in front of city planning boards, in order for them to grant zoning variances. My fellow team member (from another company) also had to testify. He is a degreed engineer, but not a PE. I warned him that in the particular state where we were testifying it was illegal for him to present himself as an engineer since he is not a PE. I also noticed that his business card said "engineer". I told him that he could be fined by the state for using the engineer title. He told me that this did not apply to him since he was an EE. I explained to him that the PE exemption was only for manufacturing companies and that it only applied within the confines of the company, not out in public. This was news to him. The latest seasonal flyer from the state in question indicates that an unlicensed individual was fined $1500 for calling himself an engineer.

 

[buzzp]

You can perform services for Boeing or whoever without a PE as long as your performing these services as part of your regular non-public business, in other words B2B. You could design a brake system, component, or any other part you wanted, without a PE under the shelter of a normal business (not consultants). I have designed things for SquareD, without a PE, and it is legal.

The way I look at it is this: If your designing a product (a product being something to be sold to a company or a product to be sold to consumers - not a service) then no PE is required. This is why they have UL, CSA, and CE marks - public safety.

I have no disagreement with EddyC on his latest illustration of when an exempt can not be an 'engineer'. However, I would caution that there are several states that would allow a non PE to testify in court, depending on the circumstances.

Ok, now I am going to go enjoy my weekend and leave this discussion alone forever (maybe )

 

[jadyn137]

Well,

Here it is. I asked this question a while ago. I received a lot of answers. A few encouraging, most incredulous or downright hostile. I thank you all for the helpful words, no matter the delivery.

However, contrary to my first instinct, I have decided to go ahead and try to get that PE license. A friend of mine gave me a good talking to about it, about how it will only benefit me to get it. I couldn't get him to understand, and still can't how I don't want the responsibilities that go with the title. I know that my boss will expect more of me just because I have a license. He did that to all the other engineers who passed the test. Gave them more responsibilities. I just don't want them, but I still want to work at what I do. I know there is no way to prevent him from finding out if I passed the test, I wish there was. I just don't want to be labeled as selfish because I did something to improve my career by taking somebody else's spot who deserved that license more than I did by taking it for myself. Im not taking it for myself, I'm taking that damn test and passing so I can be left alone about taking it, and Im going to hate every minute of it that they heap fake praise on me for passing it. I'm just going to refuse any project lead assignments that are given me. They will be sent right back to someone who wont screw it up by solving the problem in a way that isn't the most popular, but still gets the problem solved.

 

[BobPE]

jadyn137: I think you are still missing the point, the PE is about you. I have several friends that did not inform their employer they are PE's. Again, it is something to make them a better engineer and has as little or as much to do with your current employer as YOU want it to.

buzzp: I know I am probably not your favorite poster here, but I want to comment on your last response.

If you engineered something for another company that affected one of their products then they produced that product, that is illegal practice. If you worked on a product for your company and then your company sold that product to a company for their use, not illegal.

I will grant you the engineering laws get confusing to a lot of industry exempts and PE's for that matter and that is a good thing about this site, we can discuss the issues that impact our practice.

take care....

BobPE

 

[buzzp]

You take care too BobPE, I have learned to love ya , ok not really but honestly, take care.

 

[rbcoulter]

I have been reading this thread with interest & decided to put my "2 cents in".

I once read on a respected engineering website (I think NSPE.) that the PE license was worth about an extra $15K per year.
If you are in civil/structural I believe the benefit is much greater - almost required. Mechanical engineers I think benefit but not to the extent of civil/structurals.
The other disciplines I am really not sure that there is any benefit at all. The "$15K benefit" is probably averaged across all disciplines with the civil/structurals having a greater reward for being licensed. If you are an ethical person & practice as an independent consultant/engineer then you should get licensed regardless of your discipline.

 

[HgTX]

In Civil it's not so much a benefit to be licensed as a serious detriment not to be. I didn't get a big raise when I got the license. On the other hand, if I didn't get it, I'd have been stuck in "assistant" position with no possibility of a raise for the remainder of my career--and very limited options to change jobs because they'd all be looking at me very funny if I'd never gotten the license.

Hg

 

[jadyn137]

Bob, to quote you:
"I think you are still missing the point, the PE is about you." When I read that, I think of how selfish I am for doing something solely for myself. The only benefit I get from getting a PE is getting my boss and coworkers off my back about getting it.
I have already made the decision to refuse any assignment that would place me in a lead role (boss didn't like that very much), only because I would probably end up messing it up like I did the first time I took something on as a lead. I just messed it up royally, or so I thought. Turns out now that we are going to do about 95% of what I recommended a year ago. Still doesn't make me want to be a leader though. I'm soured on the entire idea of being a leader if thats what it means to be one. I'm still going to try to get it though, if only to stop the endless prodding about not taking it. I will see what refusing assignments as a lead gets me, I think its going to go higher up the chain.

 

[monkeydog]

jadyn137,
I have been lurking on this thread since the start, holding by pecking fingers. I think I now understand where you are coming from. I have tried the "lead" thing too, and don't care for it much. I don't like training or keeping people busy, and I have a real tough time delegating work out or others. I also don't like being responsable for the quality of work others put out.
I do not mind taking on hard tasks, and asking for help.
Some of us do well as leaders, some as team members.
I waited 21 years to get my PE, I wish I got it sooner, for 2 reasons. First, I believe is was tougher because I had been out of school so long, and there was a lot of re-learning I had to do. Second, doors have opened up for me. Not leadership doors, but more interesting techninal tasks. Shoot, we have PHDs with no staff, they just work their problems, and help others with their problems.

 

[BobPE]

jadyn137:

Do you have any solid mentors that can help you to understand your role as an engineer in society? A PE is not about being a leader, it is about being an engineer. The public needs your services and will place demands on you because of your chosen career path. If you are not prepared for this, then maybe the PE is not the correct path for you, although I would strongly doubt this from your resolve in responding here in the forums.

BobPE

 

[plasgears]

Monkey,

When we start in engineering, we analyze, we draw and sketch, we make interesting break-throughs, we estimate costs and foster projects along to completion. Then comes the time when we are mature enough and the boss puts smart young engineers under our wing. That's when synergy happens.

Many years ago a young MME joined my group with a specialty in fracture mechanics. I put his talents to work in computer based mission crack growth of welded structures and life analysis based on actual mission cycles.

The technology he adapted to my hardware caught the attention of the Dayton USAF authorities, and they came to me to learn more. I worked with them, and they adapted this technology to wing structures. So, my work with a talented young engineer helped me, it helped him, it helped my company, and it helped the customer.

What more can you ask for in the business of engineering?