Master's First, Then PE License 17

[EddyC]

ASCE is proposing a revision to the licensing process. They want engineers to get master's degrees before being allowed to get PE Licenses. How do the readers of this forum feel about this?

 

[Tobalcane]

SB63,

Wow, your state must be really tough. But, I have seen on other post on subjects like this one that there are a lot of people out there that got there PE with out a college degree. It seems to be prevalent. Why even get a degree when you can just work for a company, work your way into engineering, and then in a number of years take the PE. I don't see how upping the education has any impact in getting the PE, one does not even need a degree to achieve a PE.

Go Mechanical Engineering
Tobalcane

 

[StressGuy]

I'm curious to know what states those are. In looking at the website for Texas, there are requirements to apply for a waiver from the examination, but nothing to get around at least having some kind of college degree, prefereably from an ABET accredited university. Even the exam waiver process is fairly tough, as you have to have at least 12 years of design/analysis experience and nine references.

Edward L. Klein
Pipe Stress Engineer
Houston, Texas

All opinions expressed here are my own and not my company's.

 

[Tobalcane]

Well here in Massachusetts we have the following regulation:

<<<3.02: Education and Experience

Acceptable education for registration under the Provisions of M.G.L. c. 112,
§§ 81D through 81T, is defined as a degree from an institution authorized to
grant this degree by the Massachusetts Legislature, a degree in an engineering
curriculum accredited by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and
Technology (ABET), formal education without a degree in curricula as defined
above and a degree from a foreign institution with a curriculum found to be
equivalent by the Board or that has been approved by an agency qualified to
evaluate foreign curricula. The Board may approve other education following
submittal and review of detailed information submitted by the applicant.>>>

I would like to highlight the two sentences “formal education without a degree in curricula as defined above” and “The Board may approve other education following
submittal and review of detailed information submitted by the applicant”.

This is telling me that you can do the college classes, but not graduate with a degree, just as long the Board approves.

Here is another passage:

<<<(22) An applicant for registration as a Professional Engineer or Land
Surveyor with 20 years experience as lawful practice in work of a grade and
character indicating competence to practice to the Board, may be registered as
a Professional Engineer or Land Surveyor upon successfully passing an oral or
written examination, provided the applicant is otherwise qualified. The required
examinations shall be as follows:

(a) Applicants with accredited degree in engineering or
surveying: Oral Examination.

(b) Applicants with accredited degree in technology or related
science: Modified eight hour written or structured oral
examination.

(c) Applicants with unaccredited degree or no degree: Written
eight hour examination or structured oral examination.

(d) Applicants whose native language is other than
English: Examinations as specified above and at the discretion of
the Board an examination to demonstrate proficiency in the
English language.>>>

As you can see in (c) you can still take the exam with no degree, but as I said before after numbers of years of experience.

I’m a proponent of at least having your bachelors to take the PE, but it seems it doesn’t matter. So what does having a master or master equivalent matter?

Go Mechanical Engineering
Tobalcane

 

[SB63]

The one thing that really burns me up is the "oral exam". This is code for can't pass the test but have achieved a high position in the state highway department (Virginia) so gimme a PE license because the politicians are embarrassed that less than half the department has a PE license.

 

[HgTX]

The value of an MS or MEng depends on the program. My program (structural engineering at the University of Texas) was fantastic. Yes, there were math and formulas and problem sets, and I'm sure I learned something there, but the most valuable lesson I learned was the background information--what those test results on the certifications really mean and how easily they can be made to come out differently, where all those factors and formulas in the codes come from (and how little some of them have to do with actual math), etc.

So much of civil engineering is plugging numbers into formulas, looking stuff up in tables, making sure that the certs match the specs; it's good to have that perspective when it comes time to handle an exception.

But that was just a happy surprise. I really went to school for the additional material covered; I needed more specialized sturctural coursework after a general civil program. I decided to get an MS before looking for a job because I felt I didn't know anything after finishing my BS. Based on that, I'd make an MS mandatory, but that was just my experience. I couldn't imagine being able to do any kind of interesting job with the skills I had at the time. I was hired as the equivalent of a 2nd-year engineering assistant. Would I have been any different a 2nd-year EA had I not gone to school and just done that first year straight out? Impossible to tell.

Hg

 

[ChickenSoop]

Here in Manitoba, to get your P.E., one has to do 32 hours of volunteer work over 4 years. The local P.E. licensing board is more like big brother constantly peering over your shoulder, than assisting in career developement.

Do any other areas force volunteer hours to get your P.E.?

I cannot fathom how being forced to volunteer can develop your engineering skills. I think that to be a well rounded person, one should learn to take the time to have a happy personal life, with a wife and kids. Forcing volunteer service is irrelevant to developing a technical career.

 

[HgTX]

Volunteer service? Engineering volunteer service (like reviewing and sealing drawings for Habitat for Humanity), or ladling unsigned and unsealed soup at a homeless shelter?

Hg

 

[ChickenSoop]

Volunteer service -
Technical service examples:
writing technical papers for publication
technical presentation at a technical event
serve on some board
mentor a student

(some of these might have merrit for some, I suppose, but absolutly nothing to do with my career goals or current employment, nor will it improve my current skill list. Most of my job function is considered company secret and not for public disclosure due to the competition)

Communtity service examples:
big brothers
organizing charity events
managing plays/theater
operate a cultural or religious event

So basically, its ok to take an orfan kid to the mall for an ice cream, while you leave your wife and kids home for the day, and this supposedly makes you a better engineer.

Basic labor, such as dishing out soup at the local soup kitchen is not acceptable. I thought I could just pass the time and get the credit for walking along the road, picking up beercans, but not allowed.

 

[BelspringKen]

I don't think a Master's should be required to get registered. Maybe they should ask for more work experience? I have learned a lot more on the job than at school.

 

[markleblanc]

The MS requirement is absurd. Historically, a MS is a consolation prize for people who drop out of PhD programs. It is a research degree. Why do you need to be able to do research to do most engineering. I would have more faith in an engineer with experience doing engineering than a newly minted researcher with no experience doing engineering. Really, show of hands, how many here have actually, usefully, practically, solved a system of ordinary differential equations. OK, for those who raise your hand, what about a system of partial differential equations. A BS includes more academic info than any real normal engineering job requires. I would understand raising experience requirements, but needing a Masters, thats kind of crazy. Professors must have come up with this one to get more grad students to deal with the declining enrollments of foreigners.

Mark

 

[BobPE]

I think a lot of states are slowly getting away from experience without degree licensure. That effort started in the 70's and took this long to even surface under the guise of ABET. I know many PE's and only know 1 that was granted licensure without a degree and though there will always be a few that can achieve this, this is not the norm and in todays legal world, will be extinct soon if not by us then by lawyers.

I agree that the MS is hooey as buzzp puts it insofar as a requirement for the PE. But I also agree with Denoid that change is in the wind. Tobolcane shares the same opinion as me: fix the existing laws first, the look to change if it is truely necessary.

BobPE

 

[HgTX]

There are also MEng degrees which aren't research-based.

My MS, not that I'm saying one should be mandatory, was pretty practical. I had to do a hell of a lot more math in my undergrad classes. What I got from the MS, apart from the research project, was subject matter not covered by my undergraduate civil engineering curriculum (thorough treatment of finite elements, prestressed concrete, two-way slabs, stability), and a pretty good understanding of how those numbers and formulae in the codes got there. Which is pretty important in my job, since I'm responsible for enforcing those codes, or figuring out what to do if they aren't met, and if all one has is a go/no-go state with no insight into WHY, one can't exercise judgement.

In some fields an MS is a consolation prize for a failed PhD (I have one of those too). But in others, particularly those where PhDs aren't very common, an MS is a very legitimate primary goal.

Hg

 

[jproj]

To further HgTX's comments... I'm finishing up my masters in environmental engineering and it has been anything but researched based. Nearly all of the professors I've had are more interested in teaching things that are common practice in industry (along with the theory behind it). Of course every university is different...


jproj

 

[MRM]

I think an MS degree is what you make of it. If you approach those two additional years of graduate study with an attitude that says "I'm wasting two years of my life...why am I even doing this?...I could be out making money now with my BS....I won't learn anything new...etc," then you probably won't get anything good out of it. I would recommend against it in those cases.

I echo the sentiments of HgTX and jproj as I say my graduate work was also very beneficial, practical, and all around rewarding. Although it not possible to compare myself now to myself without a graduate degree, and where I would be now, I can say that out of nine interviews I had, I received seven offers. I know it wasn't my good looks that landed me the offers! BTW, only about two of those companies were actually looking for someone to fill a position. The rest of the companies I researched, and decided they would fit what I wanted at that point in time. I wrote and called them to invite myself down for an interview.

 

[DRC1]

I have a masters. I got alot out of the program. Never intended to get a PhD.
Th PE license, although good thing to have, is a measure to simply insure the general public that the engineer who prepared a set of plans has a sufficent comprehesion of engineering and scientific principls to adequately perform the work.
It is not an advanced degree. It is not a substitute for an advanced degree. It is not a recognition of excellence. It is a certification of compitence to perform engineering. To try to make into something else is unfair and unwise.

 

[EddyC]

To pass the PE exam (and FE as well), I had to study part time for several months. This studying process increased my knowledge and skills and had the effect of making me a better engineer. This process is similar (although shorter) to the studying and exam taking that one has to undertake to get a master's degree.

 

[BobPE]

DRC1:

To make achieving the PE anything else but a measurement of excellence is unwise and unfair in my opinion....For it is not only about stamping plans as you informed us, it is about providing engineering to the public here in the US. Having an advanced degree is not a substitute for the PE. Engineers not having the PE hurts our profession, again, in my opinion.

I am all for advancing ones education, but I am practical as well, we need PE's in the US. I am studying towards my masters and it is quite rewarding personally. Professionally, I have matured more by having my PE than all my education to date...

Do you have the opportunity to use your PE in you work environment? I am not a good public person and hence would never survive a career dealing with the public, but some of my most rewarding work has been from helping that very same public. My best experiences have been in working with industry to fill the void that industry created with the industry exempt clause. Working and mentoring engineers in the industrial environment is very rewarding and the results have always been positive.

So I would argue, the PE, although there is room for improvement, completes the engineer, allowing them to solve all problems for all people. Anything short of the PE makes for an incomplete engineer that no advanced degree will ever substitute for, in my opinion. Working to help engineers achieve the PE is working to solve the problem.

BobPE

 

[HgTX]

the PE, although there is room for improvement, completes the engineer, allowing them to solve all problems for all people

Whoa! Surely you don't mean that? ALL problems? Sure, there's nothing on my license that says I *can't* go sealing circuit diagrams, but there's that little ethics component that says I better not. That PE says I can solve some problems for some people all by myself rather than under the supervision of someone else.

This thread is starting to treat PE and MS as either/or. They're completely independent, and depending on the person and the degree program, the additional education might very well allow that engineer to solve more problems for more people. And since many states allow the master's work to count as a year of engineering experience, it doesn't even lose one very much time on the path to PE if one chooses to do the school first.

Hg

 

[UcfSE]

I know PE's who aren't worth their weight in crap, and MS's who are the same, and those with both as well that are the same way. Requiring an MS may help improve the knowledge level of the future PE or it may not. It all depends on what kind of people are getting these degrees. Many PE's out there don't know squat outside of the little pond they work in, and half of those ride through their life on the coat tails of the large safety factor saving their butts. You can also tell which person was a C student and rode through school with over generous professors and extra credit. There are way too many engineers out there though with the opinion that knowing something is worthless if they don't use it directly. That's BS and a bit scary imo. Even if I don't use my knowledge of stress analysis and solve differential equations daily, understanding those things does help with my overall competence and understanding of what I actually do day to day. That's the purpose of the MS, to achieve a higher understanding instead of rudimentary basics. You don't use theory to solve problems of massless elephants skating on frictionless ice, you use theory to understand what you need to do to find the right solution when something comes up that wasn't in the book. I don't think we can really expect to truly help the industry by adding more requirements but I do believe it would alleviate some issues with incompetence. If experience is your only teacher how do you know that your grand 100 years of experience don't mean you've been doing it wrong all that time? This is all my opinion of course and we all know what opinions are like