PE registration 11

[JPAULI167]

Does anyone know which state has the lowest standards for education requirements to qualify for PE license?

 

[rbulsara]

PE is not a sufficient but a necessary qualification of being a good "practicing" engineer.

If this needs to be expanded it should be taken to a different (dead horse) thread.

 

[TheTick]

I agree. I also agree with sundale's bit, which seems to sum it up well. I'm curious as to the particular points of metengr's disagreement.

 

[EddyC]

From what I can tell, the PE system exists for industries where:

a) Product cannot be physically tested.
b) Product failure can cause numerous deaths.
c) Industry has poor system of check & balances.

If the industry has ALL of the above 3 conditions, licensing is required. If you don't have all 3, then licensing has been shown to be unnecessary in those industries.

 

[jgailla]

In support of sundale, I have met many degreed engineers with a PE who appeared to have very little engineering knowledge or judgement.

The degree and test cannot screen out everyone who is incompetent, but it probably does screen out most of them. In my general experience, the engineers who had no problem passing the test are better engineers than the ones who took the test several times before passing. Of course there are exceptions.

The 4 year engineering degree and the PE means that you have done the minimum required to be an engineer (in civil, I don't want to start the PE discussion).

I have met very few good engineers who did not have a bachelor's and a PE, so the degree/license is an instance of something which is necessary, but not sufficient. This is coming from someone with only 5 years engineering experience, so take it with a grain of salt.

 

[rbulsara]

PE is a 'License" - a statutory requirement. Not much different than a driving license. You need that to legally practice your profession meaning charging general public (clients) for your services. It meets min. qualification. It is does not make you better or worse than others, but does give you legal permission and some protection.

Just like getting a driving license does not make you a better driver but testifies that you do qualify. So ranting about how good A driver one is without a license does not get you too far with a police officer pulling him over.

After all you won't take an experienced medical assistant as a qualified doctor, would you? Although there can be a terrible doctor with medical degrees and registrations.

Engineers working in exempt industries are protected by their companies who do need to meet minimum standards for whatever they are making. There are inherent checks and balances there. While a lone PE can decide to design a electrical system for a building, and he alone may be responsible to check his own work and then own up to it. It is for those that a statutory registration and licensing is necessary like for any other professional practices.

Having said that ones with PEs to get paid more than non-PEs, all other things being equal. If you are in such field it pays to get licensed/registered.

 

[civilperson]

California PE will not get comity from states requiring four year experience, (California requires two years).

 

[swivel63]

if the OP is trying to get a PE without a bachelor's, then IMO, sundale's post is relevant because he's stating his opinion that having registration without a degree is an embarrassment to the profession. and he's right, passing any of those registration exams means absolutely nothing except that you had a good day on an 8 hour test. letters after your name doesn't make you a good engineer. i've met some dumb doctors. does having the PHd or MD after their name make them better at their profession than their colleagues? no. because everyone (or most or a significant number) in said profession is expected to have it.

 

[TheTick]

passing any of those registration exams means absolutely nothing except that you had a good day on an 8 hour test.

Not quite. First you have to qualify to take the test. In Wisconsin, that means cataloging relevant experience and getting it approved by the board, getting references from other PE's, and passing the FE (only degreed engineers with adequate experience can skip the FE).

 

[Ron]

(only degreed engineers with adequate experience can skip the FE).

This is another example that will typically prevent comity with other states, particularly those that follow the NCEES criteria.

 

[youngstructural]

Perhaps I am off base commenting, however the point about Ontario (and by implication, Canadian) licensing was brought up. Feel free to ignore this post completely if not interested:

The Canadian system is, like the American, a mélange of the French & British systems. The French believe that University, and only University, can make one an engineer. They loosely have a PE-esque system, but it is much less rigorous and matters very little in day to day practice. The British have very stringent requirements, however do not actually require a degree whatsoever, of any kind. They just set the bar differently for different individuals. By law you also do not have to be licensed to practice in the UK, however in effect you do given that the firms both expect and enforce such systems, while many local authorities (ie: City Building Depts) require a licensed individual to sign off on works.

So, what do the French and British have to do with us colonials? Well, we adopted their systems, or variations thereof, and have slowly modified them to suit our purposes. In the US this has meant requiring BOTH the French style education requirements AND the British experience and performance. In Canada we to have BOTH systems, however they essentially stand as two separate paths to licensing, and just as for Drawoh's friend, a mixture of the two can often be used.

A cautionary note: The Canadian "by Examination" system is not for the faint of heart. You may not have to go to University to get your P.Eng, however you will be made to write a battery of exams (often in excess of fifteen) as well as show experience and professional development. The system is essentially your final exams for all fundamental subjects as well as design and analysis subjects. This includes everything from Chemistry, Physics, Mathematics, through to Waste Water, Concrete I&II, Steel I&II, etc, etc. You show that you COULD have gotten a degree, had you bothered to go to University.

It is also very expensive, and can take years. I would never hesitate to hire or work with an engineer who was licensed in this way.

Regards,

YS, P.Eng (Ontario), MIPENZ
--> Included the licensings for this post just in case you wonder where I'm coming from in all of that).

B.Eng (Carleton)
Working in New Zealand, thinking of my snow covered home...

 

[KENAT]

Interesting youngstructural

KENAT,

Have you reminded yourself of faq731-376 recently, or taken a look at posting policies:

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

 

[BJC]

"From what I can tell, the PE system exists for industries where: "
Originally PEs were civil and/or land surveyors and they dealt with peoples land ( ie money ). The state initiated the PE system to protect peoples property.
It's been extended to protect the publics safety ( and in some case's their money in a round about way).
Manufacturing and industry is regulated by economics and lawyers.

 

[ScottyUK]

The British have very stringent requirements, however do not actually require a degree whatsoever, of any kind. They just set the bar differently for different individuals. By law you also do not have to be licensed to practice in the UK, however in effect you do given that the firms both expect and enforce such systems, while many local authorities (ie: City Building Depts) require a licensed individual to sign off on works.

Very stringent? The UK? Are you kidding? Just about anyone who can wipe their ass unaided can pretend to be an engineer in the UK. To achieve Chartership, once the Holy Grail of UK engineering, gets easier as the universities and professional bodies dumb down to maintain revenue from fees. I doubt the technical ability of the UK's professional engineers has ever been lower, and it worsens each year.


----------------------------------

If we learn from our mistakes I'm getting a great education!

 

[KENAT]

Scotty, maybe things have gone down hill a lot in that last few years but when I was looking back in 01/02 it was still pretty stringent as I recall, at least for my society.

KENAT,

Have you reminded yourself of faq731-376 recently, or taken a look at posting policies:

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

 

[ScottyUK]

Hi Kenat,

I'm judging on the standard of people who are being awarded their C.Eng who I encounter day to day, week to week. There's certainly a lot of paperwork and diary-keeping involved in the latest 'UK-SPEC' application process (you probably remember the SARTOR system which preceded it) but the technical capability of those being churned out is definitely worsening in our industry. I would be reassured if I ever heard of someone failing to get their Chartership but I never seem to. In the case of my own professional body (the IEE), I don't think the merger with the electrical technician's professional body to create the new 'IET' did anything except increase membership revenue.


----------------------------------

If we learn from our mistakes I'm getting a great education!

 

[KENAT]

Hmm, interesting. I was actually looking at taking a few OU classes toward my masters to improve myself for chartership as I wasn't sure I'd meet whatever requirements were in place at the time. I thought the lists of requirements & rules etc were long & painfull till I looked at California PE and with my background put it on the back burner.

KENAT,

Have you reminded yourself of faq731-376 recently, or taken a look at posting policies:

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

 

[GregLocock]

The problem with the IMechE at least is twofold. Firstly when they amalgamated with smaller more specialised bodies they grandfathered their Members in. Now, no disrespect, but the acousticians (for example) may be mighty fine acoustics people, but they HAVE NOT ground their way through a mech eng course (or equivalent). So they shouldn't be MIMechEs.

The other problem is that in their more recent haste to be all things to all people they have gone for two year degree people and technicians in a big way. I suspect that is why the Civs and the Leccies refuse to join forces with the IMechE. I must confess, every year that $300 looks like worse value for money.



Cheers

Greg Locock

SIGlease see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[KENAT]

I was an associate member RAeS and was looking at getting chartered through them, but this was several years ago.

KENAT,

Have you reminded yourself of faq731-376 recently, or taken a look at posting policies:

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

 

[PilotPM]

OK, got to jump in here. I’m a PE in 20+ states, but not actively practicing all of them for about 10 years, so, some of this may no longer be correct, but I think it’s close to correct if not exactly correct even today. Here’s the skinny as best I understand, including law and precedent. States license engineers as PE’s and rule on two issues: Use of the title engineer, and, when a license is required. NCEES tried to normalize requirements, the states pushed back, and NCEES became a clearing house for “certified records” but not the requirements themselves which remain the prevue of the states. An NCEES record is helpful because references, transcripts, record of graduation do not need to be recreated for every state application. States recognize each other by comity (not the same as reciprocity; look it up). All states, to my knowledge, now recognize the EIT (did they rename this?) and PE as administered by NCEES, but some (NY for sure, perhaps others) require a higher “passing” test score to become licensed. Once licensed, you can practice in any engineering branch, except that California requires a structural engineering degree and license (and samples of your work) to be licensed to practice structural engineering. In all states, the emphasis is always on being smart enough to know when you are in over your head, and need council from others. This is the way I always responded to reference requests, and junior engineers, with minimal experience that exercised good judgment (including knowing their own limitations) got licensed with no problems. A license is required to practice engineering, when engineering is the service being sold. When engineering is incidental to something else being sold (like a product) a license is NOT required, and the use of TITLE ENGINEER is not regulated. Head spinning yet? Here’s the theory, and a few examples: Provide consulting engineering services, sell only services, a license is required, and the title engineer cannot be used if you are not licensed. In some states, the law requires the owners of an engineering firm must be licensed, especially if the company is a professional corporation, not a business corporation. (Same and sometimes more restrictive rules for Architectural firms, where more than 50% ownership must be a licensed architect, in some states) Work for a car or airplane manufacturer, and your employer is not selling engineering, they are selling cars or airplanes. The legal recourse by the public is product liability law, not professional licensing. The employer may ask for it, but the law does not. Get it? OK, state licensing requirements. About 10 years ago, I had an engineer working for me, and I encouraged him to see if there were any final “eminence in the profession” (30 years experience and age over 50, typical) opportunities left, and he was able to get a license in both New Hampshire and Maine. Each board required samples of work, and an oral exam. He was very capable, and did fine, and was awarded a license in both states. (He indicated he would only practice where he was competent, he told the board I asked him to get a license, I was a reference, and he was approved) I know both states were considering changing their requirements, but don’t know if they have, so, I would suggest looking into both. Also, if you go this route, apply to ALL possible at once, so, on the questionnaire you can answer “no” to the question “have you ever been denied registration in another state” regardless of the outcome of your efforts in one state vs. another. This is a very emotionally charged subject, and I’m not taking sides on that issue here. I’m responding to the original question, and how best to proceed without a degree. I might add I haven’t followed the content of the exams since I took them in the 70’s but would almost guarantee they still include calculus, which would be extremely difficult for someone who didn’t get this math in school. Many licensed engineers use no calculus, so, it would be very difficult to get this skill and experience on the job.

 

[MechEng2005]

PilotPM: You asked if they renamed the EIT... In my circles, the exam is the Fundamentals of Engineering Exam (FE). You get the title Engineer in Training (EIT) if you pass. However, many people still refer to the exam as the EIT exam instead of FE. Personally, I prefer to just state that I have passed the FE, instead of using the term EIT. Mostly because the work I do does not require it, so I may never sit for the PE exam (technically Principles and Practice Exam I believe). I don't think I'll like being called an "Engineer in Training" in another 30 years, even though based on the NCEES, that would be my title...

-- MechEng2005