PE Career Change 1

[jdslon]

Hello,

I am 38 and have a BSCE and 14 years of experience in construction and geotechnical engineering. I received my PE license in 2008.

I am considering moving into a different area of civil engineering such as environmental/water resources. I realize I would probably have to take an entry-level position, and I am willing to do so. However, I am not sure how my qualifications would be viewed by potential employers. In general, would employers prefer to fill entry-level positions with PEs who have some work experience, or would they rather hire fresh EITs straight out of college? In other words, is having a PE license an advantage or disadvantage when switching to a new/different area of specialization?

I am interested in reading the experiences of other PEs who have successfully switched from one career path to another. I would also like to hear the opinions of any hiring managers.

Thanks in advance.

 

[FSS]

A PE is an advantage no matter where you go. Don't settle for entry level, as that would be a disservice to you. At this point in your career your proven abilities to get things done should mean much more than catching up on some background technical knowledge.

You are still talking about staying within the civil engineering field so your PE still applies (as long as you are comfortable with your expertise in the chosen endeavor).

 

[beej67]

Two anecdotes -

1)
I did civil site design for two years out of undergrad, decided the only part of it that wasn't boring was hydrology, went back to get my masters degree, and got into water resources that way. I did not have a PE yet, but was within a year and a half of sitting for it.

The job market was better at the time, (2002) but I still had to settle for an entry level position.

2)
After I'd risen to water resources department manager in that company (06) one of my hires was a 60 year old Florida PE who'd been running his own shop for the past 20 years, and who'd moved to Georgia to be near his kids. He had no prior hydrology experience. When he interviewed, we decided we couldn't hire him because his resume commanded a better salary than we could afford, but before we could even inform him that he didn't get the job, he called us and low balled himself so he could get the job. We hired him for the salary he recommended, which was well below mine at the time, even though he was a decade or more my superior in terms of experience. If he hadn't, we wouldn't have hired him.

Opinion:

I think what you have settle for is going to be market driven, and you need to realize that going in. And the current market sucks. I'm currently running a small consulting operation in hydrology right now, and if I were to hire someone who was entry level and not capable of bringing in work, I wouldn't hire another PE. I might hire another PE on a contract basis though.



Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[jdslon]

Thanks beej67. That is the kind of feedback I am looking for.

It seems to me that when hiring managers see "PE" on a resume (for a lower level position), they automatically assume "high salary" and move on to the next resume. I guess my strategy would be to be upfront and emphasize that I would accept a lower salary to gain experience in a field in which I am interested.

 

[a2mfk]

bee- you left us with a cliffhanger, how'd the old timer (with all due respect) work out?? I bet he either picked it up super fast and was one of your best employees ever, or it was a disaster. Just my prediction

 

[beej67]

Haha,

Well the old timer was absolutely the *most* diligent, hard working guy I've ever worked over, under, or with. He'd put in 10 hour days routinely, mostly because I think he didn't want to go home to the wife.

His engineering wasn't bad, but his written language skills were the pits. He routinely transposed homonyms and misplaced punctuation in reports and emails, often comically so. He made up for it with work ethic and his willingness to research tasks and complete them without close instruction.

Good hire if you knew in advance how to work around his written language issues. I'm actually subbing some work out to him as a 1099 right now. He's currently looking for full or part work if anyone's hiring. Chase me down via the link in my sig and send me an email. He'll work cheap.



Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[desnov74]

jdslon,

I think you can "diffuse" into another specialty of your field, rather than an abrupt switch. I think you should do the following:

1)You should find a firm where you geotech/construction skills are relavent, and where you can also get exposed to wastewater.

2) Take seminars and even graduate school or courses will help. Maybe go for MSEng at night.

3)Do some studies or write papers that overlap geotechnical and wastewater, I'm not civil but I just googled and found this

http://www.ensoftinc.com/new-jaa/lcra/geo5.html

I'm sure there's more.

4)Is there a relevant software tool in wastewater you could learn to develop an edge? Can you make something of value with excel?

5) Join a wasterwater technical society, meet people who are heavy hitters in that area. Learn & network.

Dont start from scratch its not prudent money-wise and you're undervaluing your PE! Plus a seasoned engineer, you'll learn faster no need for entry level experience.

GOOD LUCK!

 

[s0eebuch]

jdslon,

I did pretty much what you're contemplating; I am a ME by education and was working for an aboveground storage tank inspection company while working towards my P.E.

I earned my P.E. in 2006 then was disappointed to learn that my current employer wouldn't acknowledge that milestone at all. And, by "at all", I mean there was no promotion, no salary adjustment, no opportunity to work on the "big projects"; I think there was an email announcement made by the HR manager to the company. And yet, that same day, the company's website was updated to announce "A New P.E. on Staff!". I think marketing brochures were printed that day also.


So, I was a marketing gimmick. I decided to move on. But I noticed there were few ME opportunities in my area so I looked more closely into Civil Engineering positions that overlapped what I did; in my case, that was water collection and distribution. Basic physics were the same, regardless of discipline, and I was already familiar with the storage and pumping aspects of water systems.

I found an employer willing to coach me on the areas I lacked, in exchange for the experience I did have. It involved some honest exchange during the interview process but, in the end, we came to a mutual agreement.

The position wasn't entry level but it wasn't the normal P.E.-level position either. It was middle of the road, so to speak. But I was able to negogiate a slightly higher salary since I did prove that I had the "stick-to-it"ness from earning my P.E. (6 years out of school before starting the EIT/PE by the way. Side note: Encourage all engineers to get that EIT as soon as possible.)

So, in summary, changing industries is certainly "do-able" for P.E.s, as long as there is some kind of overlap. Think of it as a foundation - you need something (anything) to build on. How you build your new career is then modified based on your foundation.

You mentioned geotechnical experience and wanting to get into water resources. Have you considered Dam Inspection/Design/Rehabilitation? Sounds like a good fit. You may also find good fits with pipe and valve manufacturers, as bedding and backfill of buried pipelines is a main concern.

If you can plan long-term, a good route is working as a Utility Engineer for a Public Utility for a few years, then transitioning to a consulting firm. The consultants will love your expertise and experience in dealing with one of their clients and you can build on your relationships when you make that move.

Good luck!

 

[Ron]

14 years of construction and geotechnical experience and you question your value to a general civil firm?? Are you nuts? Most general civils don't have a clue about soils. They understand surface drainage, but not necessarily so of subsurface influences. I don't mean this in a disparaging way, it's just not something to which they are generally exposed. Further, you would likely bring a pavement design capability that transcends picking the last one off the shelf that didn't get them sued. I know it sounds like I'm picking on general civils, but I've done general civil design, I've done geotechnical, I've done pavements and I've done structural.....so I speak from experience. I've investigated failures in each of those areas, some of which were directly attributable to inattentive engineering or subject ignorance.

As someone else noted, many of the principles still apply without regard to your discipline.

Go for it....keeping in mind that the only thing more boring than geotechnical is general civil!!

 

[a2mfk]

Really Ron? When is the last time your read a standard Geotech report..... I'd rather design "water runs down hill" and draw parking lots than that. Yep, I went there.

Never forget one of my structural professors, when he heard my very intelligent buddy was going into wastewater and not structural, (better with a thick African accent):
"Why do you want to play with the dirty water?"

 

[Ron]

a2...yeah, you're probably right...it's a toss-up!!

 

[beej67]

Ron's right that general civils don't typically know much about geotech.

As far as "boring" goes, that makes me wonder how long ago he was in the field. Civil site is probably one of the most challenging fields right now, honestly, in today's regulatory climate. A set of plans that would have been 10 sheets in 1999 is 80 sheets now, if you're in a modern regulatory framework. Problem is, the regulations are much tougher, the land plans are much tighter and never work, all the good land is gone, the developer's margins are tighter and can't absorb unit loss from the land plan being too tight, and the engineering fees have gone way down to boot. It's a sucker's game, largely. Especially in areas of the country that have been hit hard by the recession. You simply can't afford to properly engineer a project for the fees you've got to bid to get the work, and even if you could, you can't afford to engineer it three times, once again for the client when he changes your scope and once again for the regulatory agency when they manufacture wild ass comments out of nowhere.

I don't know how much soil has changed in the past decade, but civil site has changed 1000%, and the fees haven't changed with it.

If jdslon wants to try and get into enviro subconsulting or municipal wastewater or something like that, I can see it. I didn't get the impression he wanted to go into civil site, and if he did, he probably needs to reevaluate his thinking. It's a sucker's sector, and will remain so until the fees come up to meet the costs of doing the work. I don't know any gainfully employed civil site guys right now who wouldn't rather have a job punching out soils reports, instead of working weekends for no pay to finish jobs with no budget left due to factors out of their control.


Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[a2mfk]

I never thought of dealing with regulatory organizations as exciting, but hey, to each his own.

I got a small taste of civil early on in my career with a small company that did everything, but luckily after that they had enough structural and didn't need me...

 

[Ron]

beej67....the reasons you cited for the challenges are exactly the reasons I stopped doing civil design....the regulatory agencies. Like a2mfk, I don't consider them to be challenging...just obstructive.

I agree with you that the profession has changed over the years and that there are more requirements now than ever before. The design and detailing are more challenging as we try to slip buildings and sites into places they weren't meant to be....that truly is challenging...but the dealing with the regulatory agencies...not so much.

 

[a2mfk]

Actually Ron, I did find the regulatory aspects of civil engineering CHALLENGING, but not EXCITING or INTERESTING (not everything challenging is enjoyable...) Challenging like trying to knock down your office wall with your head which is what I wanted to do after a short period of time

It seemed very frustrating to have to navigate through so many agencies, not all of which are on the same page or even the same book. Sort of administrative or even legal rather than problem solving engineering the way I see structural. When I talk to our structural brothers on the west coast, it seems they have to deal with this a lot from plan checkers and peer reviewers, which sound good in theory but can get bogged down in non-technical disagreements on interpretation of code, differences of opinion, etc.

I think you may have had the same experience in Florida of pretty much being free to be a professional engineer, as few plan reviewers here even comment on structural drawings. This could be a bad thing too!

 

[KENAT]

Come on guys, the yellow pages did used to have under the section for 'Boring' to 'See Civil Engineering'.

What did you expect;-)

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[Ron]

Kenat...I would have been disappointed in you otherwise!

 

[beej67]

beej67....the reasons you cited for the challenges are exactly the reasons I stopped doing civil design....the regulatory agencies. Like a2mfk, I don't consider them to be challenging...just obstructive.

I just took umbrage with the characterization that it's easy, I'm not saying it's fun. As I mentioned above, I find the hydro fun and the rest of it can take a hike.

You know what I'd really like on Eng-Tips? I'd like an Anonymous Regulatory Gripe subforum, where we can link ridiculous regulatory requirements and poke fun at the idiots who came up with them, who've clearly never designed anything in their lives. Might make my days a little less frustrating.



Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[a2mfk]

KENAT- hmmmm, parking lots and regulatory agencies, or pipes and ductwork. That is a toss up!

 

[shadow401]

Dealing with regulatory agencies on a regular basis is the main reason why most civil engineers I know want out of the field.