Would you do it again?- Hind sight and engineering- 22

[jackboot]

I graduated with a Mechanical Engineering Degree and obtained a PE.

If someone knows the answer to this question please tell me:

Why does it seem that everyone is making the same amount of money whether one is in engineering or in some other profession?

Realize I love my profession, and I love the science behind what I do, and I watch Discovery and NOVA like most people watch a football game. But Engineering was a very hard degree to earn - my friends in other majors did not have to do half of what I did to earn their degree.

I help high school students from time to time and I am asked would you recommend engineering as a degree choice.

My answer: Only as a degree; it will provide the foundation for any other secondary education you can dream of (medicine or law). I can't bring myself to say - go engineering you will never regret it.

I find it discouraging that friends selling cell phones are making way more money than me and don't go to bed at night wondering whether their new design is going to kill or injure someone.

Plus - I was sweating out exams in college weeks in advance while everyone else was partying up to the day before.

Am I the only one with this observation?

jackboot

 

[moltenmetal]

ChickenSoup: That's been my observation too. The data I have shows quite conclusively that the employment outcomes of any student associated with medicine in any way are consistently nearly 100%. Engineers in Ontario, Canada were, according to the most recent data I have seen, about 25% more likely to be unemployed two years after graduation than the graduate of the average university program.

The reasons are many: over-supply (a massive problem in Ontario due primarily to a 12-fold increase in immigration over a decade), lack of public and corporate understanding of what we do and why it's valuable, a lack of consistent, understandable licensure/regulation in our profession (relative to the medical profession- every heard of a non-professional or unlicensed doctor?!), globalization/outsourcing etc. etc. And most poignantly in my view, there's been an utter lack of effective advocacy on behalf of the interests of engineers. The diversity of our profession in terms of industries served, interests and areas of specialization etc. makes it tough for us to get together and lobby effectively.

While engineers continue to be happy to put up with marginal pay and employment opportunities just to have the priviledge to do engineering, not much will change. Ours is a noble calling but we have to learn to stand up for ourselves and demand our fair share of the wealth we create- or get out and find something else to do for a living and encourage others to do the same.

 

[controlnovice]

There's a great book titled, "The Millionaire Next Door". It's about what people think of when they hear Millionaire, and what actually is a Millionaire.

It's been a while since I read it, but one part stands out. They say that, yes, Doctors, Lawyers, Salespersons, etc get paid well, but the majority feel they have to live a lifestyle to match their income, and thus, really have nothing to show for it.

So, yes, they get paid more. But they are paying more for the house, the Beamer, the second house, the spouse, etc... They show off their money, they don't save it. How many doctors you know drive a '94 Honda Civic? Is higher pay really what will make them happy?

Oh, on wealth and happiness: A study is done every year on wealth and happiness among several countries. One of the happiest (I think tied for first or second) was Colombia, which was one of the poorest in the study. The States was ranked, I think, 17th in happiness, and is one of, if not the, wealthiest.

 

[HgTX]

I'd heard it as for most countries wealth does correlate with happiness but lo and behold poor Ireland was still very happy (moral being the indomitable Celtic spirit or something). So I just went and googled around a little. I found several studies indicated that apparently money does buy happiness. And yes, Ireland is pretty happy, but these days they ain't poor (though they were in the 70s when apparently there was a rash of happiness studies; maybe the report I'm thinking of comes from then).

Hg

 

[QCE]

I would challenge moltenmetal to give one example of an employed engineer in Canada or Ontario that will "live at or just above the poverty line". (Yes I know you have 1 survey that shows a 4% unemployment rate.)

Engineers in Canada are envied by most engineers in other countries because we have it so good!

I also challenge - "Find me a cell phone salesmen that works 40 hours a week and makes 6 figures and has great benefits."

I know engineers in Canada that make this.

 

[controlnovice]

QCE,

6 figures in Canada is what? Like low 5 digits US$?

(It's an old joke)

 

[ChickenSoop]

moltenmetal: that is correct that engineers need better organization as a group. Unfortunatly, here in Winnipeg we have APEGM, which acts more like big brother constantly peering over your shoulder, rather than actually contributing to the growth of a positive image to the typical manufacturing company. It is unfortunate that APEGM's mandate is to monitor engineers, not promote engineering. Engineering is dying in the eyes of manufacturers. I work with many local companies, dealing with engineers that are not members of APEGM.

APEGM seems more concerned with making sure engineers take 5 hours in courses and APEGM forces volunteering in events not affiliated with engineering - and 'don't forget to stamp all your work' attitude. IF you don't volunteer, you don't get to be a P.E.

APEGM states volunteering will make you a better engineer. Can anyone point me to some research that proves this statement? Anyone can say the moon is made of swiss cheese too. I fail to see how APEGM can make a statement like this with no proof to back it.

I get offers from the USA for the same work, add 50% to my current salary and that is in USD. I will be there in 5 years.

Canadian engineers do not have it good.

 

[jackboot]

Could someone tell me what the result would be if:

The industrial exemption for PE registration was removed...

Would this be beneficial for the profession - required registration?

Likewise - every engineer would have a internship (4 years) and would become a full bird engineering once the PE test was completed.

We would therefore be like doctors and lawyers in that you can't practice without a license.

Any thoughts - good or bad?

jackboot

 

[ChickenSoop]

There are unethical companies that look for unemployed engineers, that pay crap, looking for a cheap deal, a cheap stamper.

Also, there are unemployed engineers that will take these jobs, as it is a step better than being unemployed.

The bottom line lies with the % of unemployed engineers that drives the salaries overall.

I think the universities need to cap how many engineers they crank through the system, and no imports should be allowed.

 

[4Pipes]

I have been a member of several Mech Eng committees for nearly 30 years including my time at University. The problem is obvious. Most Engineers want to do their own thing and not take part in the wider profession whether as students or professionals. Organising social events for mech eng students was bad enough. Organising meetings for professionals to listen to a lecture, do a bit of socialising and networking is a non starter when only get 4 turn up. Nothing will change until Engineers speak with one voice. Its a waste of time moaning that we're run by money men and not listened to by politicians.
Jackboot above has the right idea but he needs active support from every other engineer. Could you imagine a surgeon let the politians exempt his qualification ?

 

[HgTX]

4pipes say: "Could you imagine a surgeon let the politicians exempt his qualification?"

How did the industry exemption come into place?

Hg

 

[jackboot]

Good question HgTX - I don't know.

My thoughts:

The industrial argument is: We aren't selling services to the "general public" and we aren't competing for government contracts.

However, it would seem that we have 90% plus of engineers who are doing work in the exempt status. I don't know this but I wouldn't be surprised if it is higher.

It doesn't take a genius to see that everything we do filters down to the public - cars, machinery, refinery equipment (if it cuts loose). Naturally, there are codes to be met - but even the codes will default to Professional Engineers at some point (ASME for High pressure vessels).

Maybe I am just dreaming - but the PE stamp would be a good start to insure that the boom designer, for the crane, that lifts the structure for the public works project, be encompassed into the "profession".

I don't think we as professionals will be anything but fun working "techies" if we don't have this mandate.

jackboot

 

[GregLocock]

I'd be happy to see some sort of compulsory professional registration for engineers who are currently exempt, but I really don't think the PE process as it stands would be much help.

1) we don't work to codes
2) we don't design to codes
3) the regulations that govern our products change at a dizzying rate and vary widely between territories and industries
4) a prototype based design process is inherently more difficult to standardise.


What I'd like to see

A) Non accredited degree courses not allowed to use the term engineering in their title

B) All degreed engineers to complete at least 1 year of industry experience before graduating

C) All professional engineers to satisfactorily complete 4 years of directed training/ industry experience before they get their stamp

D) No academics, politicians or industry representation in engineering institutions

E) Engineers decide how many students are taken on each year.

F) No PE exams, if the degree course is good enough then what point is another exam? If the course is not good enough then it should not be accredited.

G) An alternative method of getting to licensed status that does not involve a full time degree.

H) A grandfather clause for people like me!








Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[HgTX]

A) Non accredited degree courses not allowed to use the term engineering in their title

Sounds good.

B) All degreed engineers to complete at least 1 year of industry experience before graduating

Before graduating? A typical co-op program is about 9 months--a semester plus a summer. Are you talking about that kind of full-time industry involvement?

Cuz I'm wondering otherwise--what's the difference between requiring that year (and more) *after* graduation vs. *before* graduation?

C) All professional engineers to satisfactorily complete 4 years of directed training/ industry experience before they get their stamp

It's like that in a lot of states already. California would have to change, and I suppose you'd eliminate the year's deduction that a 2-year MS program currently allows in some states?

D) No academics, politicians or industry representation in engineering institutions

What exactly constitutes an engineering institution? What is their authority? I ignore ASCE for the most part and deal with organizations more specific to my field, and academics are vital for us to understand what the real physics are behind the printed words. What exactly constitutes "industry representation"? Do you mean non-PE industry reps? Or anyone who works for industry, in which case once you've eliminated the academics you're left with no one but government employees and consultants? Yes, there are places where academics, or politicians, or industry reps do not belong, but a broad demonization smacks of knee-jerk reaction. I can see making them all have PEs, but I don't know about eliminating some of those PEs because of the paths they have chosen to follow.

E) Engineers decide how many students are taken on each year.

I don't know of ANY field that has a nationwide (or worldwide) control on how many students are granted degrees. Each school makes their own decisions. If you want engineers to advise individual schools, that's fine, but a national coordination among all the engineering schools and some mystical panel of all-knowing engineers (none of whom are tainted by academia, industry, or government) is nothing more than utter fantasy.

F) No PE exams, if the degree course is good enough then what point is another exam? If the course is not good enough then it should not be accredited.

Do you mean PE or FE (EIT)? Or both?

Two years ago I would have argued against your position on the PE exam, which *can* have more involved questions than what an undergrad might do, but then I took it, and considering that some exams are easier than others and we can just pick what we want, I have to agree it's not of great value. Better to go back to focusing on the experience. (Not that that isn't a broken system as well and in some cases an exercise in creative writing.)

G) An alternative method of getting to licensed status that does not involve a full time degree.[i/]

Many states have this as well. But if you incorporate your grandfather clause (H), why do you need that? "I've been doing this for 30 years and it ain't broke yet" is not always reliable. Sometimes they've been doing it wrong for 30 years--depending on the function, that may or may not break anything. Why go to all the trouble of enhancing undergraduate requirements and then say that the accredited degree isn't actually necessary?

H) A grandfather clause for people like me!

Sure.

Hg

 

[moltenmetal]

QCE:

I have met LOTS of engineers in Canada living at or near the poverty level. They're virtually all foreign-trained. Most of them came here in the past five years or so, expecting Canada to be a ShangriLa on the basis of what some ignoramus from Citizenship and Immigration Canada told them about the perceived "shortage of engineers". They then arrived in Canada, predominantly the greater Toronto area, to find they were in the same old trap many recent grads find themselves in also: no experience, no job- no job, no experience... I know many who have opted for McJobs of one sort or another because they need to feed their families and they're fed up looking for work.

These people are not being excluded from jobs on the basis of race or background, but rather are being out-competed in an oversupplied marketplace. They're losing jobs to people who represent a lower hire risk by virtue of having experience which demonstrates they have been successful in the local work environment.

In 1990, when engineering immigration rates to Canada were 1/12 what they are now, settlement problems for immigrant engineers existed too- but were far more prevalent than they are now because of the law of supply and demand.

But just like your engineer earning six figures (I know more than a few of them too), these are ANECDOTES. It's idiotic to generalize your situation, or the situations of a few individuals you know, to that of the general engineering population.

That's where the overall, general statistics come in to play. These objective stats DEMONSTRATE the oversupply situation in Canada in plain terms. The three-fold increase in engineering supply over a decade is a fact, not a supposition.

Engineers are versatile, intelligent, well-educated and motivated people by and large. That's why you find that so many of them are UNDEREMPLOYED rather than completely unemployed. That's why the stats for unemployment for engineers are consistently lower than that for the general population- just like the unemployment stats for the average university-educated person are generally far lower than those for the general population. Educated people, especially engineers who have a broad background in technology, science and mathematics, can always find something to do to put bread on the table. But THAT is not the issue. The issue is one of comparative value of the degree in the only terms that matter: the ability to secure interesting, fulfilling work at a level of compensation which at least in some measure respects the level of personal and professional responsibility and liability imposed by that job. And on that measure, engineering was once GREAT and is now middling to poor relative to other senior professions and getting WORSE daily.

 

[dporte17]

Moltenmetal:

Your determination regarding this topic is an inspiration to those of us who think that something needs to be done. I hope that you do not become discouraged by a apparent lack of results. There are many people who share your opinion.

Dave

 

[EddyC]

To Jackboot:

Eliminating the industrial exemption will not make engineers just like doctors and lawyers. I currently work in an A/E firm where there supposedly is no license exemption. Some of our engineers are licensed and some are not. This is quite a bit different than medicine where all doctors are licensed, whether they are employees or in private practice. What you spoke about earlier isn't elimination of the industrial exemption but is universal licensing. This goes far beyond the bounds of eliminating the industrial exemption. Good luck trying to get industry and even the consulting world on board with this.

 

[HgTX]

The situation with a mix of licensed and unlicensed engineers, where the licensed engineers take care of the stamping and (supposedly) oversee the unlicensed engineers (technically engineer assistants, I guess) does have a parallel in medicine.

Physician Assistants, certain levels of nurses (LPNs?), and nurse-midwives can take care of a lot of common doctor duties, even to the point of writing prescriptions. However, they definitely have different titles and the separate job function is recognized, unlike engineering where the licensed and the unlicensed claim the same title. (In Texas it's not supposed to be legal to use the title of "engineer" without a license, but I don't know whether that's enforced at all.)

Hg

 

[jackboot]

HgTX- The enforcement is done for the illegal use of "engineer"- I saw the Texas hearings and they hand out a fair number of fines. The Board has some teeth and uses them when appropriate.

EddyC - I was not implying across the board universal licensing. But if you have an engineering department - there would need to be one Professional Engineer to oversee all work. But again - I can't see all the ramifications that this requirement would have.

I have an uneasy feeling about the future of our profession. The current registration, notwithstanding all its faults, provides at least a level field for experience and brain power. The FE and PE are a good filter for "limiting" access to the profession. If our profession is swamped with people, then registration would weed out some of the dross. Further, if this was a requirement, then the Registration Boards would be even more influential due to the increase in members (or more of a monster depending on the circumstances.)

In keeping with the spirit of engineering - we seek to improve and better everything. Grinding through the registration process, in my opinion, would promote and elevate the status of engineering. I don't see a downside but then I don't know everything and don't pretend too.

jackboot

 

[GregLocock]

"In Texas it's not supposed to be legal to use the title of "engineer" without a license, but I don't know whether that's enforced at all"

Dunno, what does NASA call those guys with the pocket protectors who design their toys? Houston is in Texas isn't it?



Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[BJC]

It's against the law in California and Washington and they do inforce it. At least California did. The Governator is trying to do away with all licensing boards.