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]

My employer picks up the exam fee, as long as you pass. He also pays the license renewal fees, which is a good deal for me as I am licensed in 10 states.

 

[buzzp]

Bob, Bob, Bob, good joke on that one! Very creative.
I think Melone brings up some valid points (test does not proove anything graduating does not, however, the real world experience is a good idea) but you already know that.
So, lets change the qualifications to get a PE to graduating from an accredited college AND four years of real world experiences. Then if we change the test format to only reflect problems encountered with real engineering work (and not repeat the basics that college taught you)then I would be a fan of the whole PE process. That or drop the test altogether (No I have not ever took the PE test even once).

 

[ghghghgh]

It seems there is a fairly partisan split on this issue, those with the PE in favor of it, those without it, opposing the process. Logical, of course.

So to get back to jadyn137's original question, I'd like to here a different perspective. Is there anyone who has their PE that truly regrets getting it or purposely let it lapse? Does anyone deliberately hide the fact that they are licensed to their employer or prospective employer(s)?
In my limited experience I know of no one that would answer affirmatively to those questions (at least not openly), but was just wondering........

 

[1HVACEngineer]

I recently took the PE exam, in PA, for the first time and passed. However, I have to agree with buzzp in that my personal experience is that the test is a load of you know what. Approximately 75% of the encountered problems were not relevant to the real world situations. I took this test as a professional challenge, call it a personal accomplishment. My company officially does not recognize the PE – and yet they promote how many PE’s are on staff, funny how that works huh? I have worked side-by-side with many an engineer and to tell you the truth, many NON-PE’s are just as or more qualified then the PE’s. Our industry, in general, and specifically many of our peers do not give you credence unless you are a registered engineer. I had one co-worker (a PE) go so far as to quote to me that “I was not an engineer until I passed the PE exam, legally speaking.” So in his eyes the lawyers dictate who is and who is not an engineer. It is my personal belief that the State run Agencies are interested in only one thing, please PAY your annual fee promptly.

 

[JAE]

ghghghgh - I have never regretted getting my PE or SE.

buzzp -

So, lets change the qualifications to get a PE to graduating from an accredited college AND four years of real world experiences. Then if we change the test format to only reflect problems encountered with real engineering work (and not repeat the basics that college taught you)then I would be a fan of the whole PE process.

That is exactly the process used in the US -

 

[BobPE]

Congratulations on passing the PE 1HVACEngineer!!!!

BobPE

 

[1HVACEngineer]

BobPE – Thank you for the acknowledgement. As I stated it was a professional goal I had set for myself. I was very happy to have accomplished it.

ghghghgh – I have no regrets about getting my PE.

1HVACEngineer, P.E.

 

[buzzp]

JAE,
From what I have heard from others the majority of the test is review from college. I am saying make it all real world, ie have them do a design (all but the prototype) or something along those lines. Give them a real problem. This would make much more sense and at the same time will also prove their knowledge in the basics (have to know by default).
Maybe what I have heard is totally off base but there seems to be a consensus on the test being, for the most part, generic(college course stuff).

 

[EddyC]

The PE is meant to be a minimum competency certification. Without it, evaluating one's competence becomes more problematic. The PE is meant to be the gateway to the profession. Its the starting point, not the finishing point. Its a uniform method of determining the minimum competence of design persons. The universities and employers are not up to the task of determining competence. That is why the government does it. The PE is also about more than just technical competence. Its also about knowing the law as it applies to engineering and it makes you subject to state regulation. I have met several engineers in the past who were technically competent, but didn't know the law. They thought that conformance to code was optional. They weren't PEs.

 

[JAE]

Here is a great document that outlines a lot of the history and concepts behind the PE license - probably more for the US - check out Section 3 particularly.

NCEES

 

[BJC]

jadyn137
I have read most of the 137 replys and find the answer to your question very simple.
If you have to ask the question, the answer is no.
Some people are chiefs, some are indians and lots are in between. You only need two feathers at most.
If you can igonre the good advise you got here you wasted a lot of time and money going to school. A two year AA degree in cad would have served you well.

 

[whyun]

My advice is: If you can pass the exam, go for the PE.

Like everyone stated in many posts above, PE is an indication of minimum competency level to work in areas where public safety is significant. There are very knowledgeable PEs as there are ones who are marginal. There are many knowledgeable non-licensed engineers who make me wonder why they do not attempt to obtain their PE.

Remember that obtaining the PE is not reaching the finish line. It is just the beginning...

 

[GregLocock]

"PE is an indication of minimum competency level to work in areas where public safety is significant. "

Gosh, glad to hear that PEs can work out the rollover characteristics of SUVs. Or isn't that a public safety issue?

Please don't exaggerate. PEs have their areas of competence. So do other engineers.

Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[JAE]

Greg -
there's a lot of us engineers who are PE's that deal mostly in the consulting realm with buildings and bridges, etc.

For automotive and other industrials there is still the issue of public safety, but it is handled under product safety guidelines....you are engineering a product, not providing engineering services directly to the public. The PE laws are there for those who do provide engineering services directly to the public.

I don't for a minute assume that non-PE's who work in automotive or other similar arenas are less competent just because they don't have a license. But I would say that this whole thread is about whether a PE license is something worth getting or not. It really depends on the type of engineering you do as to whether you should strive to get it or not.

 

[PSE]

Better to have a PE and not have to use it than to not have one and find out that you really need it.

Regards,

 

[BobPE]

"PE is an indication of minimum competency level to work in areas where public safety is significant. "

There seems to be a bit of confusion with this idea. The PE is required to provide engineering services to the public, including engineering that deals with safety.

Greg:

PE's work out rollover calcs all the time, mostly for lawyers and insurance companies, how do you think these concerns came about for the automotive industry to begin putting rollover characteristics to the top of the list of their design concerns? The PE's area of competence is engineering, that is the beauty of the PE and I think it is very worthy for any engineer to obtain.

BobPE

 

[haggis]

A reduction of SUV rollovers is on the heads of the a lot of the people who use them. Unfortunately, there are a vast number of stupid people who suddenly become invincible when driving an SUV.

Travelling in the fast lane at posted speed or even higher in snow + suddenly travelling sideways + hitting dry patch + high centre of gravity = rollover. PE or non PE is'nt going to change the laws of physics. You are beating your head against a wall in trying to design a vehicle which is idiot proof.

A bit off topic, but I don't think whyun was insinuating that the inherent problems in SUVs (when misused) or any vehicle for that matter could be rectified with a PE at the helm.

While it is plain in which areas a PE is mandatory, and rightly so, the question of whether it is worth it to get one when not required is strictly an individual choice. Even if it is just for the self satisfaction of having PE after ones name, to that individual, it is worth it.

I agree with jaydn137, if you have to ask the the question, the answer is no. However, in choosing not to get a PE, I woud'nt say a diploma in cad would serve you as well as a BSc. or a BE.

Haggis

 

[GregLocock]

"You are beating your head against a wall in trying to design a vehicle which is idiot proof." Sorry not true. By applying engineering to the problem of rollovers it has been possible to significantly reduce the incidence of single vehicle rollovers in SUVs. Off the top of my head I think the insurance companies are saying something like a 60% reduction.

The first, easiest, way is to make sure that the centre of gravity is not too high. This involves mass management during the early stages of the program, and frankly ain't going anywhere unless you are starting with a cleanish sheet of paper. It directly affects ground clearance, which is a major reason for buying the vehicle for many buyers.

Then you make sure that there are no negative interactions between the steering behaviour of the driver and the yaw/rolling behaviour of the car. That's the tricky bit.

Finally, you add an electronic rollover mitigation system, which typically linearises the steering behaviour of the car (to make the driver's job easier) and makes sure the car can't trip itself up.

Now, this is all a fine lot of tomfoolery to solve a problem that basically comes from people trying to drive trucks (and SUVs) as if they were cars. Nonetheless, it does work.


Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[haggis]

First of all, I'll apologise to jadyn137 for getting off topic again in his thread but I must reply to GregLocock's last post.

By saying "You are beating your head against a wall in trying to design a vehicle which is idiot proof." , I in no way intended this to mean you are wasting your time. Absolutely not. Engineering advances in vehicle safety, and the inovations that have been forthcoming in assisting drivers in precarious circumstances, are to be commended for the reduction of accidents which much too often involve fatalities.

However, it seems to be the nature of the beast in some cases to alter their driving habits in a negative way because of these safety features.

Recently, I was treated to a ride in a coworker's new Corvette who then proceeded to demonstrate, at highway speed, how he could yank the steering wheel violently and the car would correct this abnormal manouvre by using the computerised control of both traction and ABS to automatically apply any of the four brakes to help correct the situation. Luckily it worked this time but the design of these features were not for the promotion of idiotic behaviour. Had it failed to correct the situation, I'm afraid I would'nt be around to tell the tale of how it came about in the first place.

Unfortunately, when an accident does result, the fingers are pointed at the manufacturers, the engineers, and then the ambulance chasers go after the wrong people and sometimes even the Ralph Nader's of this world come out of the woodwork. All to belittle the efforts of some good engineers and earn an unethical dollar. Sorry, I started out clarifing my comment to GregLocock and ended up having my rant for today.

Maybe there should be a "Ranting in Engineering Forum"....

Haggis

 

[GregLocock]

I hope you gave your co-worker an earful. I'm looking forward to lawsuits arising from people who deliberately try and roll their SUVs when they are just 'testing' the system!







Cheers

Greg Locock