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

[Hill William]

Folks,
"I swear by the nipples of Vishnu, I got a 6 figure offer from the largest company in the world! Just give me your FAX number so I can prove it to you"

Horseapples!

Take care,

He was probably looking to send out resumes.

 

[Slugger926]

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.

I don't know, I think they are all pretty hard. You may be right with Agricultural being the toughest and Structural being the easiest. How hard can it be to engineer stuff not to move?

I know Agricultural (aka biosystems) has to be proffecient in Chemical, Civil, Sturctural, Environmental, Electrical and Mechanical while maintaining a strong knowlege in Biology and biological processes. The Agricultural test is impossible to study for. Many who fail will pass with flying colors in Mechanical or Civil where they can concentrate their efforts on one subject.

Each field has thier value, and the ones that cross the lines between multiple fields can help communicate issues of other disiplines when working on cross disciplinary teams.

Each company that I have worked at, I have used an array of engineering disiplines. At a digital scale company, I used EE stuff for the electronics; then used Structural and Geotechnical for the bridge and foundation designs (railroad scales); and Mech Eng skilles for hoppers, grain drying, HVAC, hydrolics (imagine a scale tipping up to dump recycables into a bin), and so forth.....

Each disipline is valuable. You wouldn't want to go to a General doctor for a heart surgery, or a heart surgeon for a Lasiks procedure. You would go to a General doctor for common sports injuries or the common cold. The same is true in Engineering.

 

[Slugger926]

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.

Yeah, that is why a lot of Agricultural/Biosystem engineers sit for the Civil or Mechanical exams (especially the second time around).

 

[IlPadrino]

Yeah, that is why a lot of Agricultural/Biosystem engineers sit for the Civil or Mechanical exams (especially the second time around).

OK... I wrote the first thing that came to my mind, which just happened to start with an "a"... how about we look at some of the latest data:

Examination, First-time takers, Repeat takers

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

PE Architectural, 66%, 26%

PE Chemical, 81%, 27%

PE Civil, 67%, 34%

PE Electrical and Computer, 66%, 27%

PE Environmental, 73%, 35%

PE Mechanical, 64%, 30%

PE Naval Architecture/Marine, 89%, 100%

PE Structural I, 38%, 25%

PE Structural II, 51%, 37%

PE Agricultural, 75%, 44%

PE Control Systems, 80%, 49%

PE Fire Protection, 42%, 34%

PE Industrial, 69%, 40%

PE Metallurgical, 55%, 54%

PE Mining and Mineral, 84%, 35%

PE Nuclear, 80%, 80%

PE Petroleum, 93%, 33%

Can we agree that maybe there's a correlation between exam discipline and difficulty? Can we agree structural and petroleum or naval architecture/marine are on opposite ends of the pass-rate spectrum? Does someone want to look at a larger data set?

Or would you have me believe that, on average, people who take the structural exam are just not as smart as the average naval architecture/marine engineer?

Please don't misunderstand me... I'm just trying to suggest that some disciplines are harder than others. And states that designate as "Professional Engineer" make it difficult to assess capabilities. Still, with a good argument, I'm sure I can be convinced I'm wrong.

 

[EdinNO]

I haven't read the entire string, but I have to say there are elements of GT's OP with which I agree.

I certainly wish the PE designation were more exclusive and more necessary for most positions and engineering activities.

I certainly wish that any controls technician in the HVAC controls industry who has pulled a little little wire and maybe did some logic programming on PLCs (or DDC controls for those in the HVAC industry) couldn't just arbitrarily start calling themselves an "engineer". To me, that's almost blasphemy. I think it should be to everyone of us who has earned an engineering degree.

As for Industrial Engineers, I don't have a whole lot of exposure. I do work in a bit of an IE industry / role and some of my coworkers are IEs. To me, just in their general knowledge, I have not really seen a whole lot of evidence that they have been through as intense of an education and training as some of the other disciplines. But that could just be a factor pertaining to the individuals who I know.

Overall, it appears to me that the engineering profession has been totally watered down and is becoming commoditized (is that a word?). Look at the IT guys out there. Even after the bust in the maket in recent years, they are still making big bucks and can often get into it with little or no formal education. I have seen this first hand with friends and coworkers in the field.

I believe something has to be done about the profession of engineering. Its gotten out of hand. But what can we do? Is it too late? How to we overcome nations like India diluting the value even more?

Ed

 

[Slugger926]

OK... I wrote the first thing that came to my mind, which just happened to start with an "a"... how about we look at some of the latest data:
Can we agree that maybe there's a correlation between exam discipline and difficulty? Can we agree structural and petroleum or naval architecture/marine are on opposite ends of the pass-rate spectrum? Does someone want to look at a larger data set?

Or would you have me believe that, on average, people who take the structural exam are just not as smart as the average naval architecture/marine engineer?

Please don't misunderstand me... I'm just trying to suggest that some disciplines are harder than others. And states that designate as "Professional Engineer" make it difficult to assess capabilities. Still, with a good argument, I'm sure I can be convinced I'm wrong.

It is all realative to the engineer, their experience, school, test, and statistics. Some of the fringe egnineering disciplines may only have 50 people sitting for each test, and their pass rates may vary greatly from test to test.

Some of the disiplines seem like a repeat of others (Mechanical, Civil, ect...). There doesn't seem to be a true general engineering PE exam these days.

Also on some of the main disiplines, a bright individual with the proper study guides can pass each one of them. I know one Engineer that has passed Civil, Electrical, Mechanical, and the Chemical engineering exams because he thought ethically he should be proficient as an engineer manager of those groups he manages in a general engineering firm.

The unlicensed engineers that are copying drawings, and forgetting about strutural loads while designing electrical systems are the ones that are hurting our industry.

Each field if utilized properly has their importance. The problem I see in corporations is that those that come from the business schools don't understand what engineers can be used for. They sometimes tend to put engineers in positions of changing lightbulbs, and then decide later that they can replace the engineers with "techs". These same managers are then up a creek when a real engineering need comes along.

 

[JoeBoone82]

I don't know, I think they are all pretty hard. You may be right with Agricultural being the toughest and Structural being the easiest. How hard can it be to engineer stuff not to move?

lol, I think he meant Agricultural and Structural being on opposite ends.... as in Structural being the more difficult of the two.

There are LOTS of things to consider for "stuff not to move."

 

[JoeBoone82]

Examination, First-time takers, Repeat takers---------------------------------------------------

PE Architectural, 66%, 26%

PE Structural I, 38%, 25%

..... Like I was saying....

 

[Slugger926]

lol, I think he meant Agricultural and Structural being on opposite ends.... as in Structural being the more difficult of the two.
There are LOTS of things to consider for "stuff not to move."

I agree that there is a LOT of stuff to conceder for stuff not to move. I have done structural stuff before. I was being sarcastic. They are all tough.

I didn't know that they added a PE Architectural. What do they do besides what a Civil / Structural would do? I would prefer someone who has passed both Structural tests.

The point I was trying to make is one test's pass rates on some of the areas such as fire protection or Agricultural may vary from 75% one time to 25% the next since the numbers taking the tests may be low which statistically allows for more variance in pass rates. I have also seen the EE pass rates vary a lot too. The Civil, Chemical, and Mechanical pass rates usually don't vary much since the testing sample is large enough to minimize the variance.

I don't think we should be throwing rocks at each other, but be more worried about the unlicensed practice that is undercutting our jobs and professionalism. Should the guy that can't do the easiest calculations that was called an engineer in the military be allowed to offer engineering services to the public? These are the kind of engineers that are really eroding our profession.

 

[IlPadrino]

My point here was to try and stimulate a discussion that "Registered Professional Engineer" is a pretty broad title and does little to demonstrate proficiency in a specific discipline. My thesis is that some exams are easier to pass than others (maybe I shouldn't have used a specific example).

 

[IlPadrino]

I don't think we should be throwing rocks at each other, but be more worried about the unlicensed practice that is undercutting our jobs and professionalism. Should the guy that can't do the easiest calculations that was called an engineer in the military be allowed to offer engineering services to the public? These are the kind of engineers that are really eroding our profession.

Don't all state laws prohibit offering engineering services without license?

Hey... and let's not disparage military engineers, eh?

I think you're in agreement with me that the term "Engineer" should be more restrictive, not less... regardless of a PE exam. It seems to me NCEES is more interested in making money and expanding it's base (though technically a non-profit) than in preserving the "Engineering" community. I mean, why do I have to pay an annual fee for an NCEES record?

 

[Slugger926]

Don't all state laws prohibit offering engineering services without license?
Hey... and let's not disparage military engineers, eh?

I think you're in agreement with me that the term "Engineer" should be more restrictive, not less... regardless of a PE exam. It seems to me NCEES is more interested in making money and expanding it's base (though technically a non-profit) than in preserving the "Engineering" community. I mean, why do I have to pay an annual fee for an NCEES record?

Just because the laws are in place, doesn't mean the state boards are enforcing the laws. I know my board is under immense political pressure to not prosecute certain companies. They told us last year at a legal class that Company A may donate to State Rep A, and pressure State Rep A to abolish certain engineering laws. The Rep A makes a deal with the Attorney General not to introduce the law in exchange of a letter promising not to prosecute Company A.

Here is some videos of a board meeting in a different state:

Videos

As you can see, we need to ban together to protect our profession. We may have to create something other than the NSPE since those that control NSPE may own companies that are making too much to want laws enforced properly.

I think we all agree that there are real engineers in the military then those given the title. I have been forced to hire some from the military that only qualifications were that they A) drove a delivery truck, B) cleaned nuclear missiles. This really confuses the business majors when these guys get out of the military because the business majors aren't worried about qualifications but the price tag of the engineer. Then we can't fire the guys once we have them on board.

 

[Slugger926]

My point here was to try and stimulate a discussion that "Registered Professional Engineer" is a pretty broad title and does little to demonstrate proficiency in a specific discipline. My thesis is that some exams are easier to pass than others (maybe I shouldn't have used a specific example).

Here are the pass rates the year I passed:

**Nat’l Pass% ** Nat’l Pass%

1st time takers Repeat Takers

AGR 55% 42%

CHE 72% 30%

CIV 59% 28%

ELE 62% 25%

ENV 69% 40%

IND 62% 26%

MEC 65% 31%

PET 66% 32%

STR 43% 18%

It looks like Chemical and Environmental were the easiest tests that year, and Structural and Agricultural were the toughest which doesn't surprise me. There is a difference in studying for something where you have straight forward problems with lots of study materials versus areas where questions could bring in anything real world where their aren't study problems for.

I just noticed this information and thought I would post it when looking through the newsletters trying to figure out when my Board raised the license fees by 50% per year.

By watching the pass rates from year to year, my thesis is that the fields will vary from year to year on which are the easier and which are the harder to pass. I have seen the EE test with 25% success rate in the past.

Yes, Licensed PE is a broad title just like an MD is in medicine.

 

[benbo]

As the person who spent a lot of time here defending everybody as having taken and passed a difficult exam, I think it is time we stop this comparison of exams. It's ridiculous.

I don't think these pass rates tell you anything. Yes, the agricultural exam had a lower pass rate for first timers, but a higher pass rate for repeat takers than any other exam. And, at least in California, there are far more repeat takers which would mean that it has a higher overall pass rate. Why? Who knows. It doesn't mean anything, particularly since there are so few people that take this exam.

Now, the structural exam consistently has a much lower pass rate, so maybe we can say it is harder. I mean, it had a repeat takers pass rate of 18%. But what's the point of all this?

 

[IlPadrino]

As the person who spent a lot of time here defending everybody as having taken and passed a difficult exam, I think it is time we stop this comparison of exams. It's ridiculous.

Ridiculous is a passionate word... It is reasonable to hypothesize there is a discernible difference in exam difficulty. Past that, it seems interesting to discuss what this means to the Engineering profession. Other than the original poster, I don't see anyone trying to disparage.

I don't think these pass rates tell you anything. Yes, the agricultural exam had a lower pass rate for first timers, but a higher pass rate for repeat takers than any other exam. And, at least in California, there are far more repeat takers which would mean that it has a higher overall pass rate. Why? Who knows. It doesn't mean anything, particularly since there are so few people that take this exam.

The pass rates should tell you something if the PE designation is to have value. As the designation is designed to protect the public interests, there shouldn't be large and unexplained upward swings in pass rates. You lost me on the repeat takers and overall pass rate. Isn't the pass rate for repeat takers *always* less than the pass rate for first-time takers? It would be interesting to compare differences in first-time and repeat takers pass rates. If some disciplines require more real-world experience, perhaps the repeat takers pass rate is lower considering preparation/studying will add little to real-world experience.

Now, the structural exam consistently has a much lower pass rate, so maybe we can say it is harder. I mean, it had a repeat takers pass rate of 18%. But what's the point of all this?

The point, as I mentioned before, is that I believe the increased number of ways to earn (yeah... no one gives them away - every exam is difficult!) a PE as diluting the clarity of what an Engineer really means. As an extreme example, I don't like software writers calling themselves Engineers.

But, still, it's just a discussion that provokes my thought.

 

[benbo]

Sigh. I am not talking about comparing the repeat passer rate with the first time passer rate. I am talking about comparing the repeat passes rate from exam to exam. Slugger926 is making a point that the Ag exam is harder than the others because it has a lower first time pass rate (55%) than the other exams. I stated that it has a higher pass rate for 2nd time examinees (42%) than every other exam. If you are going to compare passing rates you should do it in a complete manner and not cherry pick things you think make your point. I don't believe it means anything.

I'm sorry if you are offended by the word ridiculous. Perhaps I should have said pointless. THere are not huge radical swings in exams with large sample sizes. Other than that, what is the point of all this? Do you think that the engineering boards and NCEES don't look at this stuff? If you are truly concerned there is some problem, I trust you are working with your board and NCEES to fix it.

First, we have some clown coming on here claiming that the exam doesn't really mean anything, anybody could pass it, especially a top three school honors millionaire graduate. Then, we have some people coming on here claiming x exam is easier than y exam. Specifically, the agricultural exam was mentioned. THen we have somebody coming on claiming that not only is the agricultural exam not easier than the other exam, it is significantly harder. I think they are all difficult and all this discussion is fruitless.

 

[benbo]

For people who are real interested in splitting up the exams by subject, they should move to California. They basically put Structural and Geotechnical Engineers above the others in clear wording. Of course this is logical, since I think you first have to be licensed as a civil engineer before you can become a structural or geotechnical in Ca. So you have to pass a bunch of tests.

From board website-

There are three categories of Professional Engineer licensure available in California: (1) practice act, (2) title act, and (3) authority. The practice acts are Civil, Electrical, and Mechanical Engineering. Practice act means that only a person appropriately licensed with the Board may practice or offer to practice these branches of engineering. The title acts are Agricultural, Chemical, Control System, Fire Protection, Industrial, Metallurgical, Nuclear, Petroleum, and Traffic Engineering. Title act means that only a person licensed by the Board in that branch of engineering may use the title in any manner. The authorities exist for two sub-branches of civil engineering: Structural Engineering and Geotechnical Engineering. An authority indicates a proficiency in that field greater than what is required for civil engineering licensure. Persons who pass the written examination will be issued a license in the branch of engineering for which they applied.

 

[IlPadrino]

You wrote "And, at least in California, there are far more repeat takers which would mean that it has a higher overall pass rate." What did you mean by that?

I think they are all difficult and all this discussion is fruitless.

Oh, so you'll stop writing?

 

[benbo]

You wrote "And, at least in California, there are far more repeat takers which would mean that it has a higher overall pass rate." What did you mean by that?Oh, so you'll stop writing?

Which exam did you take? Suppose I conclude that was the easiest exam. You're saying that doesn't disparage you?

To answer your first question -

In California, at one time they gave the number of repeat takers verses first time takers. The repeat taker number was a lot higher.

So, Assume there are 500 exam takers. 100 are first time takers, and 400 are repeat takers.

On one exam you have a first time taker pass rate of 25%, and a repeat pass rate of 50% THe overall pass rate is 225/500

Then assume we have a first time pass rate of 50%, and a repeat pass rate of 25%. The overall pass rate is 150/500. Significantly lower.

The repeat takers have a larger effect.

To answer your last question-

Yes. Now I'm done writing.

 

[Road Guy]

my bet is this guy is an unregistered HVAC installer from Panama City