Revamping the PE liscensing Process? 9

[PSE]

Several posts, primarily within the Professional Ethics Forum, deal with either trying to define who an Engineer is, or liscensing. Is the only "true Engineer" a liscensed one? Given the relative diversity of potential engineering occupations (if not titles), should liscensing bodies (worldwide) expand, or re-define the scope of liscensure? In the US it seems (from my exposure) that the majority of Engineers do their jobs under the "Industrial Exemption" rule rather than persue liscensure. Some may not know how their work "fits" in with the current liscensing categories or simply find it more convienient. Should international "reciprocity" rules be established for liscensed individuals?

Regards,

PSE

 

[Binary]

Bob, you mention accountability. Don't you think that non-PE's are also held accountable for their actions? Using the Columbia or Challenger examples, I seriously doubt that the people who made the bad decisions are still employed by NASA, Thiokol, or whoever.

I understand that there's also legal culpability. I doubt that PE's are jailed for making honest mistakes any more than doctors are. Criminal negligence, fraud, manslaughter, etc are another matter and I'd guess that unlicensed folk are just as liable.

Beyond the potential for losing their licenses (and if medicine is any example, you can go a long way before it gets yanked), I don't see how a PE is any more or less accountable than any other engineer.

Eagerly awaiting clarification...

0110

 

[BobPE]

lol binary, you can tell who the real junkies are on this site....hmmmmm present company included!!!

yes PE's are more liable, I have 10 million in liability, which in this world wont go far before the take my house, 401K, cars, and what ever wlse is of value...If all engineers were required to be licensed, taking their license away would also take their career away too....THat would be the right price for making a non-honest mistake....

They did fire people at nasa, the engineers...the wrong people in my opinion....

unlicensed folk are not liable, their companies are...I would rather have a person making decisions that a company any day...

BobPE

 

[PSE]

Bob,

If the individual tasked with making the go-no go decision on the shuttle was a PE, perhaps the disaster could have been avoided. Human fallibility what it is, I cannot say that it would be 100% guaranteed. I would extrapolate this to any decision made by a PE or not. Why else are you required to carry liability insurance. It wouldn't be needed if it were impossible to make mistakes.

In an attempt (hopefully not futile) to get this thread returned to its track, I am suggesting an appraisal be done on whether or not the PE licensing process is still aligned with the current variety of engineering disciplines. Personally I do not think so. As such, how do you go about establishing licenses for a new genre, maintaining a PE review requirement when there are no PE's practicing in the discipline? You are ethically bound not to practice outside your area of discipline so as leanne points out, the PE ME's that she has worked with would/should not qualify as references for a PE EE. A bit of a catch-22.

Any thoughts on how to break out of this conundrum are welcome indeed.

 

[BobPE]

PSE:

I think the discussion is wandering along on a good track. It is a tough subject to comprehend. Examples and discussion helps everyone.

I still say 100%...without a doubt in my mind....Liability insurance arose not out of the PE making incorrect decisions, but rather out of the fact that information getting to the PE may be corrupt....allowing him to make incorrect decisions vased upon faulty information...see how this fits into the managers role of needing a PE seal on reports pertaining to engineering? The manager is resolved to a paper pusher, like they should be...pushing engineering onto the people that need it without the managers input.

Once an individual passes the PE exam, they can practive in ANY disipline they feel confident and competent practicing in. I do electrical design for pumping system because I have education and background in that area. I also do architectural engineering because I have background in that area.. I do ME all the time from industrial machine component design to Gausian dispersions for stack emissions...ANY PE can act as a reference, it is up the the PE and the person needing the reference to establish the relationship that the PE needs to feel comfortable signing off on.

There is a lot of misinformation out there among PE's and espically among industrials.....My advice is to get involved, the need for a PE reference is very important, we police ourselves and having a PE "vouch" for prospective PE's is a bullet proof way to keep undeseriable engineers away....I have pushed the bounds of being a reference, because I know the difficulties for industrials and government to get the references....

BobPE

 

[Binary]

One way is to do away with the reference requirement altogether.

In liu thereof, how about a more rigorous testing requirement? For example, structure the exam to cover more than just technical expertise but also seek to assess judgement through scenario-type questions.

Also, rather than a nebulous "x years of experience and references from y number of PE's" how 'bout a specific list of experiential requirements. For example, 500 hours of system design, 100 hours of component testing, 100 hours of HAZOP analysis, etc.

The CPA & Physician requirements are much more specific in terms of the required experience and I think ours might do well to be too.

It would also make it easier for new grads to know that they're moving along a path to licensure. I know that new accountants are careful in the work that they accept because they know exactly what's required to sit for the CPA exam (which is a 3-day test) and whether they'll get it at a given job.

 

[BobPE]

binary:

I agree that something has to be done. I like the reference by PE requirement. It is important that, and I hate to say this this way, that a member of the "club" pass judgement on prospective members. This is important in many ways and is similar to what lawyers and doctors go through. Not everyone can be a doctor or a lawyer, engineering has to be the same way.

I think that the reference rule should be opened up to a character reference, not specifically a work reference. That way, you can meet other PE's, understand what it means to be a PE from them, and get your reference. Quotas for hours of training is not what the PE is about...I think that would make it a mindless process, taking thethought out of the process....

I like your thoughts on CPA's and seeking work related to obtaining their goal. Can you imagine interviewing for an industry and asking how many PE's they had...saying no to them becuase they didn't have any....I think that would send industry a great message. Engineers are real and have to be dealt with. If you do not provide the environment WE engineers want, you will suffer by not having the quality engineers you demand....

All my ranting and raving is based on the premis that WE engineers need to control our own destiny. I do think we engineers are more important than doctors and lawyers for without us, they could not achieve, espire or obtain their goals....I know that is an egotistical opinion on engineering, but after all, it is us engineers that make the world around us that everyone is prospering in...

BobPE

 

[RDK]

I have often stated that here in Canada P.Eng status is necessary to be an engineer and to practice in any case. There is neither industrial exemption nor are there any exams, as you know them in the US. (There is a brief Professional Practice exam but that is simply an exercise to make sure that you have read the Engineering Act and the Code of Ethics.)

The closest thing we have to an industrial exemption is if you are an employee of the federal government, you do not require registration. That is because the various engineering acts are provincial and the federal Crown is not bound by the laws passed by provincial and municipal governments. However the vast majority of the federal government engineers, myself included for 15 years, are P.Eng’s.

Entry to the profession is gained through graduation from an accredited university, 4 years experience, attendance at a professional development series and references from existing engineers. Our technologists, your Bachelor of Engineering Technolog, are almost always excluded from entry to the profession. They normally go back to university or have a series of up to 22 exams. The exam route is very rare.

I do not really understand the reliance on exams for entry into the profession. To base, in large part, the entry to the profession on 16 hours of test taking cannot really satisfy the aims of professional licensing. The material covered by the FE exam should have been taught in the undergraduate curriculum. Anyone who can pass the requirements for an engineering degree should have that knowledge. Why not use 4 years of educational experience and trust the universities to produce academically qualified people?

To use the PE exam as the standard for entry has in my opinion two fundamental flaws. The first is that performance on a multiple guess exam, where you have the right answer in front of you is a poor proxy for professional competence. The sample exam questions I have seen are along the line of how much flow will this pipe carry. The real professional problem is how much flow capacity do I need, how can I provide this in a long term cost effective and safe manner? Calculating the flow in one case is such a small part of the normal professional problem that the exam does not really test the professional competence of the individual.

The second problem is that the profession is simply too broad and diverse for any examination system to keep up with the developments in the profession or to be capable of adequately testing the knowledge of everyone in the profession. I see numerous examples of this in these forums. The aerospace say that the exams are not relevant, the electronic controls say that the EE exam is heavily slanted to power production etc.

The main hurdle for an EIT to pass is to get references from other P.Eng’s. The provision of letters of reference is something that is taken very seriously by both the association and the individual engineers. The ones that I have sent in have been as complete and as honest as I can make them. (I have provided negative recommendations for people who I did not feel had the character and experience to become engineers and they were declined entry for a while.)

What is a better indicator of suitability, an 8-hour exam or the personal knowledge of an established professional who has known and supervised and reviewed the work of someone for up to 4 years or more?



Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng

Construction Project Management
From conception to completion

http://www.kitsonengineering.com

 

[BML]

Binary: There is a similar regulation on number of hours in specific areas for architects. My brother-in-law is going through that now. Once his portfolio is complete, it has to be reviewed by the state licensing agency.

BobPE: I must admit to being a bit confused by the fact that you have to have a PE license to do certain things, but *which* PE license doesn't make a difference. I will be sitting for the industrial exam because that is what my career is and it is what I like. (Someone mentioned thermo classes earlier; lucky for me those questions aren't on the IE test.) Ethically speaking, I would have a problem with performing, say, CivE work on a project where I had to be licensed, even if I thought I knew it. I would think that such a person would need to have a license in that field, or at least something reasonably close.

Everyone: I agree that the PE reference is a big issue. I happen to be lucky in that my state will accept references from other engineers who are "not licensed but could be" ... in other words have the education and experience to qualify to sit for the exam. But until that requirement changes for others, I agree that existing PEs need to make themselves more known and available to us non-PEs. If you really want for every engineer to be a PE, you can't expect us all to leave our industry jobs to get "real" experience - 95% of us would have nowhere to go (no openings), and the vacancy would be filled by even less qualified individuals.

 

[leanne]

BML:

There's no smiley for a standing ovation, but you are getting one here...

If you really want for every engineer to be a PE, you can't expect us all to leave our industry jobs to get "real" experience - 95% of us would have nowhere to go (no openings), and the vacancy would be filled by even less qualified individuals.

 

[BobPE]

leanne, have you missed the point? leaving your jobs is not what is about, dont be silly. If your employer was required to have only PE's, you dont think this woud make a difference in industry? I certainly do. Its not about the engineer, its about the employer...they dont want engineers to have the power over them, they prefer to treat engineers like a commodity, shipping their work where ever they please whenever they please, overseas is a prime example...

That's the point, it betters us all....

BML:

Once you get the PE, its up to you to decide how to use it....Read up on your specific state laws, some states differ, like Cali, If you sign civil as an engineer you need the earthquake test....

BobPE

BobPE

 

[leanne]

No, Bob, YOU miss the point - completely. For those of us who have spent our careers in industry as opposed to public service sector where a PE is required, we in industry have this little problem with finding PEs for the required recommendations, because there are so few - it's a chicken-egg situation.

I don't have a problem with taking a test or two. I take exams in grad school. I'm taking two exams this fall/winter for ASQ certification. We can all take the FE exam (with proper preparation, IMO, any competent engineer should be able to pass within a reasonable number of takes, less than 4), but without the recommendations of the requisite PEs having knowledge of our work - current industry exempts cannot complete the registration process.

And, it would be unethical to ask a PE to lie about being familiar with our work. N'est pas?

You want all engineers registered. That's clear & quite obvious in a majority of posts I've read by you. Well, that's a fine idea. But, the current RPEs are going to have to step up to help those of us working in industry without PEs in developing a solution to this required recommendation issue.

You can't expect the desired change to start with the industry employers. Industry will never volunteer to do away with the exemption they currently have. Instead, divide & conquer from within. How? Current RPEs help industry exempts who would like to be PEs. RPEs mentor students who will soon be engineering graduates. Grow the RPE community up within industry so that those new industry RPEs who are promoted to management will encourage and mentor engineers in their organizations promoting RPE status. Eventually, the industry exemption could be eliminated from within. However, this requires effort by NSPE and current RPEs. What is the saying? Put up or shut up?

If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem....Become part of the solution. Maybe my idea of divide & conquor is not the best solution, so figure out something better - you're an engineer. Solutions are what we do. Help figure out a way to make a change instead of just complaining in every post about industry exempts. It's getting old...

I think this horse has been beaten to death.

 

[BobPE]

you missed my point again leanne....but you still had a good post. I dont complain, I simply refrain from stating sour grapes in every post I make, since most people here make honest attempt to understand the process....I feel your pain....I do help where ever I can....unfortunately there are a lot of PE's out there that do not want to help...they just focus on laws limiting practice without helping get engineers licensed....

Oh, and I wouldn't expect you to ask anyone to lie....you would be surprised the level some PE's would go to help you, if you ask them....start with the FE and cross the PE bridge when you get there....

If you dont like my posts, stop reading them..I like your posts, so I think I will keep reading them.....lighten up a bit....

BobPE

 

[leanne]

Bob, I'm glad you like my posts. I can't seem to make myself stop reading any posts in a thread I've gotten interested in - it's a bad habit I developed in USENET years ago. Perhaps some judicious use of smileys might make your posts seem a bit lighter, less grapey . They come across as negative to this industry exempt.

PE registration is on my list. So is ASQ CQE, ASQ CQA, and my Masters , maybe PhD or JD. Completing my first novel . Learning to fly a helicopter. Finishing a chihuahua with an obedience title.

Of all of the items on my list, finishing that stubborn chihuahua with his CD may well be the hardest.

 

[PSE]

Bob,

Let me give you an example. I happen to be in a similar position to leanne it seems.

There are approximately 11000 RPE's within the state where I work.

The state requirement is for 5 references, 3 of which MUST be RPE's

I have been working within the state for over 15 years.

Number of RPE's worked with =0 Subcontracted with=0 Personally known=0.

Despite efforts to the contrary, it is not likely that my career will evolve into licensure any time soon.

leanne has started some good threads on mentorship and RPE proactive involvement in getting engineer's licensed.

Let the discussions continue!

Regards

 

[BobPE]

PSE

I agree that this is a stumbling point for many engineers. It can be overcome...Hopefully more PE's will post to leanne's other thread and come up with some ideas as to how it can be acomplished....I know that I have worked on subcontracted out work for industry and my involvement with the project managers from the industry was used by them as a refernece. Try to sub out some work to outside consultants. They MUST be PE's if they consult you on engineering, this is an easy way to get exposure while doing usefull work (rather than going to stuffy PE society meetings). It is not an easy task, it was intended to be hard. Getting to sit for the exams is often harder than the exams themselves. That is by design....

I agree, lets keep talking about it...I think there is a lot of good infor being thrown around....

BobPE

 

[PSE]

Bob,

My "problem?" is that with the richness, experience and diversity of engineering talent within my employer, we do not tend to send work out to subcontractors. The company tends to hire additional talent if needed and with an average employee experience of 12 years, tends to keep them. A great place to work but not conducive to encountering RPE's.

Regards

 

[Binary]

Bob, I'm with PSE and Leanne on this one.

All of us *want* to get our licenses. We feel confident of passing the test and confident in our professional and technical skills. We just don't have the contacts.

You say "It's supposed to be hard" and "It can be overcome". It's not hard for the doctors, lawyers, and CPA's. Why should it be hard for engineers?

The first PE's didn't have PE references so why should I need them? Why is it that only a PE is considered a worthwhile reference?

I'm with Leanne - this horse done been whipped to death.

Hopefully someone will come up with a scheme that permits registration by those of us without the PE network. If not, the industrial exemption will reign. (And be actively supported by folks like me just so that I can continue to work.)

 

[BobPE]

binary:

I think its harder for doctors than it is for us. Lawyers and CPA's...well look ath what they do....they cant really kill people in their careers, so should their tests be hard?

A PE will not be "given" to anybody, they have to earn it. The process is not to terribly hard and a lot of good information is in these posts in order to acomplish it....

Set your mind to do it, and get it done...

As for the industry exemption reigning...well, if thats what you guys want....PE's will make it go away one day...

BobPE

 

[Binary]

Bob, when I say it's not harder for doctors, what I mean is this: Go to med school, pass your boards, do a residency if you want to be a clinician.

I don't mean that that's easy in the sense of effort required. What I mean is that the system is set up so that if you just go through the system, put in the effort, and you're competent, your license is basically automatic.

For an engineer, you can go through the system, put in the effort, and be competent but still be denied licensure based only on the fact that you haven't worked with PE's.

The system is structured to enable doctors to become licensed. The system is structured *against* engineers getting licensed (except in the civil arena, where PE's abound).

WRT the industrial exemption reigning, if the PE's move toward eliminating it *without* figuring out how to get folks like me into the club then that would emphasize one of the biggest weaknesses in our culture - selfishness!

 

[BobPE]

there is nothing selfish about licensure, of any kind. Its a benchmark for competancy...its not a personal thing at all really....It is the goal of PE organizations with the support of their PE members to eliminate the exempt status of engineers...there is nothing selfish about that...maybe there is for industrial corporations, but not for engineers...Industry is selfish because they make profits off being that way....

If doctors dont complete the residency, they do not get licensed....same process here with engineers, only ours is a lot simpler that a doctors...

The point is (leanne!!! LOL) I do what ever I can to include all engineers, I can not do it alone and a lot of other PE's dont care to do anything at all about getting all engineers invloved. YOU (exempt engineers) must start asking questions, requesting and demanding changes from the state boards for licensure, finding ways to overcome references.....THere were a few industry engineers in this forum that discussed their PE's they did it...Look for good PE's and ask for their help....dont drop it because its hard...just figure out any way you can and do it...

BobPE

PS I will never be worn out talking to people about getting licensed!!!! I think some people are worn out with me...well thats too bad...LOL but I still hope they get licensed anyway...

BobPE