Metallurgical PE license in CA slated for elimination

[TLA]

Currently, three Title Act PE licenses in CA have been slated for elimination by the Board. They are Agricultural, Industrial, and Metallurgical Engineering. Those currently holding a PE in these categories can maintain the license, but no new examinations will be offered after elimination. There was no info on the timeline of the "phase out", but the Joint Committee on Boards is waiting to make it's final recommendation to the Board.

I took the exam last Oct. (and thankfully passed), and am saddened by this turn of events. I'm sure that most metallurgical and materials engineers will pursue graduate degrees rather than obtain licensure, but I don't think it's good for promoting the profession among prospective students, among other things. What are others thoughts?

-Tim

 

[metengr]

Tim;
I agree with you. Either way, you can still obtain a PE license in other states, and having the credential still looks good on your resume.

I sometimes wonder why CA leads the way in the most unusual current events and behavior.

 

[Maui]

TLA, I also took the Metallurgical exam last October and passed, but mine was administered in New York. What would be the motivation for eliminating these exams in California? Do the administrators feel that there are not enough examinees to warrant the continued costs of offering these tests?

Maui

 

[Carburize]

There are serious moves in Texas to eliminate the need for a PE in any discipline. The need for a PE review of civil engineering projects has already been removed for various low cost projects.

 

[NickE]

"There are serious moves in Texas to eliminate the need for a PE in any discipline. The need for a PE review of civil engineering projects has already been removed for various low cost projects."

That scares me more than the removal of the Metallurgy PE. Although I dont see a large amount of value in a PE for me personally I do respect and agree with the value of a PE to society and industry.

I guess that cost cutting is now impacting saftey agian. This is unconcionable (ok I spelt that wrong) and is going to cause all kinds of troubles. (IMHO)



Nick
I love materials science!

 

[HgTX]

There are serious moves in Texas to eliminate the need for a PE in any discipline. The need for a PE review of civil engineering projects has already been removed for various low cost projects.

Carburize--got a reference for that, or more specifics?

Re the topic of this thread--I'm not a member of any of those three fields but that's really a shame. I'm kind of surprised it's coming from CA, who otherwise seems to take licensing (and various other rules and regs) very seriously; they're one of the states who has *separate* licensing for CE and SE.

Hg

Eng-Tips guidelines: faq731-376

 

[Carburize]

Two areas currently under review in Austin
Design-Build
TSPE has been a longtime proponent of qualifications-based selection for project delivery through the Professional Services Procurement Act. While design-build may enhance the speed of design and completion of a project, and foster harmony among members of the design-build team for the project, it also will make it more difficult for the owner to measure the quality and value received. When the design team no longer works directly for the owner but with or for the contractor, the fiduciary relationship is changed, thus increasing the risk to the owner.
We feel that design-build may not be an appropriate delivery system for public entities, where the expenditure of tax dollars is under consideration. We believe that the state should move cautiously on further extending the use of design-build on public projects.


Agency Consolidation
TSPE believes that consolidation of all professional boards is clearly not in the best interest of the public. The Texas Board of Professional Engineers governs the license procedure for engineers and provides penalties for those engineers that violate provisions of the Engineering Practice Act. To combine this board with other professional boards would not be efficient or save taxpayer money since the Board sets fees paid by engineers to administer its activities. In fact, the Act clearly defines that no money shall ever be paid for the administration of the Act from the General Fund.

 

[unclesyd]

Didn't a roof being constructed at a TEXAS TI plant just fall in.

 

[HgTX]

Carb--those are several steps away from what you describe. I know they've exempted computer people from any licensing requirement for calling themselves engineers. I'm not aware (but as a bridge person I might not necessarily be) of removal of PE requirement for particular structures--that's what I wanted more info on.

Re design/build, Texas isn't the first state by a long shot to be heading in this direction, and many major construction projects have been done this way around the country for many years (and proudly reported in ASCE's magazine). There are plenty of arguments to be made against design-build (none of which belong in this thread) but I really don't see it as part of a slippery slope to eliminate PEs.

Hg

Eng-Tips guidelines: faq731-376

 

[hacksaw]

Sorry to hear about a move to allow "design-build" in any state. It is a dangerous practice treat engineering as a management approval process of "design" work with minimal involvement other than a final over-view of the time sheets as the basis for an engineering stamp.

 

[Carburize]

HgTX - I believe that bridges under a certain project value are already exempted.

 

[HgTX]

Carb--gotta reference?

Hg

Eng-Tips guidelines: faq731-376

 

[EdStainless]

Many states have taken the route of offering the 'rare' tests on a longer schedule. A good number of states have never offered Metallurgy.
It is sad to see slippage in the encouragement of professional development.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Corrosion never sleeps, but it can be managed.

http://www.trenttube.com/Trent/tech_form.htm

 

[Carburize]

HgTX - I checked with a TSPE buddy today - apparently civil engineering projects with a value less than $20,000 do not need review - he is looking up the applicable State legislation and I will post the reference when I get it.

 

[stanweld]

As I recall, CA eliminated or proposed to eliminate the Met PE previously. About 20 years ago, I applied to take the examinations in CA but was informed that it was no longer being provided. The reasoning given at that time was that whereas CA law did not require signature or seal of any document by a Met PE, it would be superfluous to provide it. Some of the same logic may be prevailing again. Industry may also be influencing the decision making process. Industry certainly has been actively involved in reducing the PE requirements here in Texas.

 

[Carburize]

HgTx the applicable legislation is "Texas Engineering Practice Act and Rules Concerning the Practice of Engineering and Professional Engineering Licensure" -sub-chapter B Exemptions
Paragraph 1001.053

 

[HgTX]

Carburize--thanks.

What can one build for $20,000 that could pose a danger to the public? I guess any number of indoor hanging appurtenances that could fall on someone.

Hg

Eng-Tips guidelines: faq731-376

 

[Carburize]

The change in the law came as a result of a number of "private" enterprise deals I believe in Angelina County, Texas where one of the local commissioners decided he knew all there was to know about bridge building on the smaller county roads without needing to talk to any of those engineer guys. When the projects were complete and the issue was raised in Austin the state had to find a way around the situation without the local politians loosing face - so the PE oversight requirement for these "small" projects was removed.

 

[HgTX]

I suppose on the smaller county roads those arroyos aren't that deep, and after the first car crashes through, that pretty much fills up the gap...

The state DOT still builds a lot of county bridges. I'll have to ask around about what SOP is these days.

Hg

Eng-Tips guidelines: faq731-376