P.E. -- Past, Present, & Future?

[cement]

No doubt that GT_ME is a horse's ass, or at least he plays one here, but a beast of burden can be a usefull tool. Even an ace tin knocker from a top 2 school would be commiting malpractice if he placed a large air handler without consulting a Structural PE. We specialize in our fields, but gain some general knowlege in peripheral studies. We know our limits and don't practice outside our license. His statement of "so what" is unfounded and unsupported and is so much spam merely set to stir up the floc tank. The license is a benchmark standard that is required by agencies and industry alike.

What this discussion brings forth for me is the proposed new licensing requirements that are on the horizon of advanced degrees. While I know that the MS gives a person a better understanding and depth of knowledge, does it make you a better engineer? And while a license is a requirement for the work I do, an advance degree would do little more than add to my personal growth and a CM certificate would be more applicable.

 

[Road Guy]

I always looked at degree's like this.

A college degree gives you only the opportunity to a better job, lifestyle, etc.

You still have to do some work along the way, you can graduate at the top of your class, but you cant "learn" a work ethic, and you cant study leadership in a classroom. You need both to succeed in any career.

So a college degree in engineering gives you the opprtunity to be an engineer, passing the PE gives you the opportunity to be a "great engineer" you can have both, in any field and still be a f'tard.

I think alot of "top tier" engineering graduates, some from Georgia Tech, think that getting their degree was the hard part, and the rest of their career is all down hill from there (in terms of difficulty)

I still vote no on a Masters in Engineering in order for licensure, it wont bring forth the $$$$ and respect that people think it will (i.e. see nursing, accountants, speech therapists, etc) all proffessions who lean towards a masters degree as a beacon to be equated to doctor / lawyer status

 

[benbo]

The original post said "In some ways the P.E designation has improved, but in others, I believe it is increasingly becoming a “so-what” designation."Getting past personalities and (perhaps) egos, I think this is a statement that can be intelligently argued. It isn't an insult to all Agricultural Engineers and it isn't a compliment to all Structural Engineers.

Please make the argument. I still don't get what the guy is talking about, except to put himself on some sort of pedestal. And I don't notice any compliment to Structural Engineers here either. The guy probably thinks they are morons as well.

Maybe I went overboard with this guy, but if a person thinks the PE is a "so what" designation, why are they studying for it? This guy is supposedly studying for it, despite his millions and his ranking as one of the top engineers in the universe. I sure wouldn't put out the effort to do this if I hadn't figured out at first if it was of value.

I shouldn't have called the fellow names, but he irks me.

Moreover, the guy spent half his posts bragging about himself and denigrating other people.

This is what he said -

"And, omg, we now have an Industrial Engineering (Professors & Students referred that discipline as Imaginary Engineering) P.E. And another omg, Agricultural P.E.

Where are we going???"

You must not be an Industrial or Agricultural Engineer (neither am I, but I know some real competent Industrial Engineers, and real decent people as well, like John Price who used to post at the other board). I don't see any other way to look at this than as an insult. How would you like it if someone called your profession "Imaginary Engineering". It is probably going to come as a shock to the students at the UC Berkeley department of Industrial Engineering that they are studying an imaginary technology. But then, Berkely is only in the top 10, not the top 3, whatever that means.

 

[Desert Engineer]

I've read some of GT_ME's previous posts and I think he has what I’ve heard referred to as the (pardon the language) "my cock is too large to ride my bicycle" problem; I use the word “cock” as a metaphor. If you’ve on a construction site long enough, you’ll meet these guys. They usually come up to you when you’re minding your own business; and tell you how much of a problem it is to own too many awesome cars/trucks/boats, how much trouble it is to own an extremely large house, or how horrible it is paying taxes on the X amount of homes/properties they own, you name it, they have a problem with it. They ramble on, trying to impress you with what they have by trying to make it sound like a bourdon, just so they can mention it to as many people as possible. Then after they are thoroughly convinced they have proved themselves better than you, they move on to the next person and repeat. Leaving you wondering: “why the hell did this guy, that I’ve just met, come up to me and give me all of this information, about something I don’t care to know about, pertaining to something that doesn’t’ really sound like a problem”.

Anyways, I’m not sure what the psychology is behind this, but it definitely there.

 

[maryannette]

I didn't finish my degree. I was academically eligible to return, but not financially able at the time. When I was financially able, the time was wrong. BUT, my certificate says that I am a Professional Engineer licensed in North Carolina. There are a lot of differences in people and everybody travels a different road. It takes all kinds. There are plenty of friends at this site, but I'm sure there will be the unfriendly type appear occasionally.

 

[IlPadrino]

Please make the argument. I still don't get what the guy is talking about, except to put himself on some sort of pedestal. And I don't notice any compliment to Structural Engineers here either. The guy probably thinks they are morons as well.

Let me ask you this... if you needed a PE stamp (regardless the reason - but you needed it by Christmas) and your State board said could sit for *any* PE exam, which exam would you choose to sit for? Sure... you'd choose the exam you feel you're best prepared to take. But after that, I'm sure you'd agree some are harder than others.

And when someone thinks of an "Engineer", assuming they get past the guy that drives trains, who comes to mind? A Civil Engineer or a guy who designs software? I don't think it's impossible that Software Engineers will some day join the ranks of PEs. Do you think this is good or bad for your profession?

I agree completely with maryannette that diversity is important to any organization. I personally don't who you are or where you came from - so long as your competent there's a place for you on my team. And I don't judge Engineers by their PE certificate (whether they even have one or what discipline they took the test in).

For a while I considered taking the Control Systems discipline. I looked at the study material available (there's nothing like the CERM!) and bought a few recommended books. I've got to tell you - it didn't seem that hard. But the fact that it's only offered once a year made my particular timeline too tight.

So... bottom line (for me, anyway): there's an argument to be made. It may not be convincing, but I think it's interesting to discuss.

 

[benbo]

I agree this may be interesting to discuss, but I do not believe the fellow who brought it up meant to do anything but denigrate fellow engineers. Remember, this is the mechanical engineer who basically was already smarter than most civil engineers by his freshman year. Second, you say you do not judge a person by their credentials, but it sure comes across that way. It appears you don't have much regard for software engineers or control systems engineers.

And when someone thinks of an "Engineer", assuming they get past the guy that drives trains, who comes to mind? A Civil Engineer or a guy who designs software? I don't think it's impossible that Software Engineers will some day join the ranks of PEs. Do you think this is good or bad for your profession?

This is all subjective.

Although in many places around the country, people think of civil and structural engineers, when I worked in the Silicon Valley, and down here in Southern California, working for various defense contractors, when the word "Engineer" is mentioned, a software engineer comes to mind far faster than a guy who designs buildings (probably people first think about electrical engineers of various stripes). I certainly believe the people who program satellite communcations, defense guidance systems, and other very high tech equipment are very sharp engineers. If it was so easy I'm sure a lot more people would be doing it because they all make six figures plus. I have respect for software engineers, and wouldn't really care if there was a PE for that. Is your implication that software engineers are stupid, because basically that is what a lot of the new economy is built on, people like the fellows from Google and other high tech companies.

I will grant this much - by my way of thinking if they are going to make a special PE for software people they should make it siginifcantly more specialized than the general EE exam. Much like the structural test. Structural is technically a part of civil but the exam is really showing a specialty. Same with Geotechnical - which they have in Cali for obvious reasons. To be a geotech PE in California (not a civil geotech but pure geotech) is pretty tough.

 

[Guest]

In order to really make this a meaningful discussion (less the derogatory remarks towards any single profession or discipilne), I think it is helpful to go back to the beginning as to why the profession is regulated. Professional engineering is regulated, according to the statutes of my state, because the legislature deemed it necessary in the interest of public health and safety. PERIOD !!!!

In my state, "Engineering" includes the term "professional engineering" and means any service or creative work, the adequate performance of which requires engineering education, training, and experience in the application of special knowledge of the mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences to such services or creative work as consultation, investigation, evaluation, planning, and design of engineering works and systems, planning the use of land and water, teaching of the principles and methods of engineering design, engineering surveys, and the inspection of construction for the purpose of determining in general if the work is proceeding in compliance with drawings and specifications, any of which embraces such services or work, either public or private, in connection with any utilities, structures, buildings, machines, equipment, processes, work systems, projects, and industrial or consumer products or equipment of a mechanical, electrical, hydraulic, pneumatic, or thermal nature, insofar as they involve safeguarding life, health, or property; and includes such other professional services as may be necessary to the planning, progress, and completion of any engineering services. A person who practices any branch of engineering; who, by verbal claim, sign, advertisement, letterhead, or card, or in any other way, represents himself or herself to be an engineer or, through the use of some other title, implies that he or she is an engineer or that he or she is licensed under this chapter; or who holds himself or herself out as able to perform, or does perform, any engineering service or work or any other service designated by the practitioner which is recognized as engineering shall be construed to practice or offer to practice engineering within the meaning and intent of this chapter.

That is the statutory premise of establishing 'engineering' and 'professional engineering' as a profession regulated by the state.

If you go to the rules governing engineering, they provide duties that are specific to all engineers and then duties specific to disciplines of engineering, set forth as follows:

CHAPTER 61G15-30 RESPONSIBILITY RULES COMMON TO ALL ENGINEERS

CHAPTER 61G15-31 RESPONSIBILITY RULES OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS CONCERNING THE DESIGN OF STRUCTURES

CHAPTER 61G15-32 RESPONSIBILITY RULES OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS CONCERNING THE DESIGN OF FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS

CHAPTER 61G15-33 RESPONSIBILITY RULES OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS CONCERNING THE DESIGN OF ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS

CHAPTER 61G15-34 MECHANICAL SYSTEMS

CHAPTER 61G15-35 RESPONSIBILITY RULES OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS PROVIDING THRESHOLD BUILDING INSPECTION

CHAPTER 61G15-36 PRODUCT EVALUATION

In these cases, it has been deemed that competent individuals are responsible for the engineering work to practice within these areas because it is in the public's interest that they do so. I believe as our society expands and begins to develop more diverse needs, you may very well see the number of engineering designations expand to include those other non-traditional disciplines (e.g. software engineering) if it is deemed necessary in order to protect the public welfare.

I would gladly discuss and argue the benefits or limitations/injury this can cause to our profession. However, I urge everyone to present it within context instead of grossly mischaracterizing or marginalizing anyone's education, background, or profession.

JR

 

[kevo_55]

Ok, I think I'll weigh in on this one.

With the Minnesota seal (it's simply text!!) an engineer in any disipline could dishonestly seal ANY set of engineering plans/calculations. The laws in MN simply state that you can seal and practice what you are proficient in.

I for one would love to have a diffrent disipline seal for each type of PE. I do not agree at all that having a diffrent seal for diffrent PE classifications will somehow make the profesion something "less" than what it is.

The biggest beef that I have in the debate is actually concerning the licensure of many Minneota DOT bridge engineers. Word is on the street is when it's time to get licensed these DOT employees take the PE: Civil (transpo). Granted I know what this exam actually has within it, I just do not agree that it is fair that people who pass this exam can seal calculations for a bridge. :deadhorse:

It's just my :2cents:

OK, back to :winko: for me.

 

[benbo]

I've beat a dead horse on this one with my opinion for a while, sorry. I believe we have a lot of competent, qualified engineers of all types here on the board, who have passed the exam in all the disciplines, and should be fully respected.

And JR is right - the reason for the certification is not to give us another notch on our belts, but to show we are competent to protect the public welfare. Heck, talk about specialized, there is a PE for Fire Protection, and from the pure definition of the reason for the seal, this one seems to me to be one of the most important. And I've heard it is a pretty difficult exam.

 

[Road Guy]

would have to vote no on software engineers, unless someone could die from bad software.

 

[benbo]

would have to vote no on software engineers, unless someone could die from bad software.

Just ask the PEs who are now in jail for reprogramming the traffic patterns in Los Angeles. Or the people that program airplane control software, or the software at air traffic control stations, or on the Space Shuttle, to name a few.

Or the people that program the safety systems in the power grid, or thh Digital Control System at a nuclear or fossil power station.

 

[Guest]

^^^ I was thinking along the same lines benbo when I made my statement about software engineers. I have seen the market for PLC-controlled remedial action systems go through the roof (literally). I know that I have to rely on those persons to make sure logic is right in terms of controlling the systems, redundancies, and emergency shutdown and venting. Some of the systems I work with can be VERY DANGEROUS (high power demands, high temperatures generally leading to high energy steam and vapor, high chemical concentrations, etc.). The PLC operations have immensely improved the remediation operations at numerious contaminated sites. Add wireless telemetry and it makes for a very efficient operation. :true:

I don't want to pretend that I can see or predict what branches of non-traditional engineering may yield. I simply would be open to an 'argument' to be made for how it relates to protecting the safety and welfare of the public.

:2cents:

JR

 

[Road Guy]

I dont think the people that design the space shuttle are even PE's if I recall some reading. But they are "rocket scientist"

I know most of the engineers I have met from Lockheed Martin in Marietta are not licensed.

How can you reprogram a traffic pattern? Brainwash people into taking a different route to work every second tuesday? Yeah I know you probably meant traffic signal timing ,something most jurisdictions require PE's to do around here.

 

[IlPadrino]

Just ask the PEs who are now in jail for reprogramming the traffic patterns in Los Angeles. Or the people that program airplane control software, or the software at air traffic control stations, or on the Space Shuttle, to name a few.
Or the people that program the safety systems in the power grid, or thh Digital Control System at a nuclear or fossil power station.

That sounds a lot like Control Systems Engineering... not software engineering. We could start a new thread on the merits of software engineering but I think it will be difficult to be convincing that, in general, writing software (an art, not a science!) has in inherent element of public safety.

jrengieng wrote it well: "However, I urge everyone to present it within context instead of grossly mischaracterizing or marginalizing anyone's education, background, or profession." And I agree the element of public safety is the overarching concern. But this makes we wonder about PLS... where's the registration interest there? And, please, don't think I'm denigrating Land Surveyors (my father is one of them!).

kevo_55 gave a good example of my perspective: "Word is on the street is when it's time to get licensed these DOT employees take the PE: Civil (transpo). Granted I know what this exam actually has within it, I just do not agree that it is fair that people who pass this exam can seal calculations for a bridge." We might all feel the same way if an Agricultural Engineer was performing inspection of construction and relied on his PE registration to do so.

There's been some good discussion here and I've learned a few things. Thanks for the discourse.

 

[Road Guy]

for Kev's example, they wouldnt be able to get away with that in most states, I know in GA, you submit your paperwork (experience) to the board and they decide if you take the SE I or the Civil exam.

If people really do that then they are practicing out of their discipline and breaking the law anyways.

But I think engineering licensure should be for professions that impact a large percent of the general population. Or people who are trusting for things within a system to work, large football stadium for example.

Maybe if you fly an F-22 for a living your accepting a higher amount of risk than a guy riding in an elevator at a mall. Even if the F-22 crashes its likely to not effect that many people, compared to designing a bridge on an interstate that has an average daily traffic of 250,000 cars/day.

Also Surveyors are Surveyors and engineers are engineers, there is a different purpose for each, both are of great importance to "society as a whole"

And keep in mind the lady working at Supercuts is also licensed by the state.

But I would hate to be a computer engineer taking a test on scantron!

 

[GT ME]

I never was a humble one : )

In all industries, the most competent engineers, unequivocally, come from the floor, like I. What I mean by that is that I'm not only a technician but also hold Associates in both Applied Science & Physical Science before becoming a top engineering recruit.

Without a solid a foundation, even the tallest buildings can crumble. And I'm confident my superior foundation has given me engineering skills that you will never obtain.

My specific credentials wouldn't interest you. It appears that the only thing that interests you are your own credentials. I have some humility, which obviously you lack. Since you are so anxious to share information, what is your name and the name of your business? Or is that you Tom McKeon?

 

[GT ME]

Actually, I think the Civil P.E. makes the most since today due to the liability requirements.

Even then, I think it's unfortunate that Civil P.E. designation has been further watered down by subordinate designations.

It's a risk reward situation -- so for you Civil P.Es, I envy your risk-reward potential -- just be careful and don't let the "lowlife" lawyers bite you in the arse.

GT ME,
I understand your point... for those (most, right?) States that designate all P.E.s as just "Registered Professional Engineer", there is no way of showing the difference between disciplines. And I'm sure everyone will agree there are some harder disciplines than others. I'd put Civil certainly in the middle 80%, but Structural and Agriculture are probably on opposite ends.

 

[GT ME]

I wouldn't say ME is superior, but as I stated, most of today's P.E. designations where under the ME umbrella.

The SAT scores, however, for the mainstream engineering disciplines from top schools are significantly higher.

the post above said this is a topic for venting of steam -- well hell -- this is venting of steam...lol

Your premise, at face value is argumentative at best. How do you judge someone's 'qualfication' by the discipline of thier profession without looking at the underlying coursework or experience? You are making sweeping generalizations without any support other than the hubris that MEs are superior to other engineering disciplines. Your only vague support is ... the way things used to be ?
The only thing that I can see in your presentation is the beginning of a beat-off blister - it looks like you are well on your way to achieving that goal. :jerkit: :leghump:

If you want to engage in a serious discussion of the progression of our profession, I would recommend providing FACTUAL STATEMENTS rather than conjecture and perhaps try to apply a modicum of humility. Not all of us fit the :burgerking: role as well as you do.

:2cents:

JR

 

[GT ME]

Those pics are funny : )

I am now. I was recruited by NASA & offered an engineering mgmt position at GM before becoming a top mgmt consultant for a Fortune 10 firm.

Owning a business & becoming a P.E. will enable me to do what I love -- engineering & business.

Your premise, at face value is argumentative at best. How do you judge someone's 'qualfication' by the discipline of thier profession without looking at the underlying coursework or experience? You are making sweeping generalizations without any support other than the hubris that MEs are superior to other engineering disciplines. Your only vague support is ... the way things used to be ?
The only thing that I can see in your presentation is the beginning of a beat-off blister - it looks like you are well on your way to achieving that goal. :jerkit: :leghump:

If you want to engage in a serious discussion of the progression of our profession, I would recommend providing FACTUAL STATEMENTS rather than conjecture and perhaps try to apply a modicum of humility. Not all of us fit the :burgerking: role as well as you do.

:2cents:

JR