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

[IlPadrino]

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

The easiest does not mean easy. Should I have wrote "least difficult" to avoid any misunderstanding?

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.

Got it; thanks for the example. I was confused because you wrote "And, at least in California, there are far more repeat takers which would mean that it has a higher overall pass rate." More repeat takers can only lower the overall pass rate.

To answer your last question-Yes. Now I'm done writing.

OK. But I think there's benefit to this discussion so I'll keep at it.

 

[newton]

Colleagues,

I appreciate all of the views that have been expressed. I think we can all agree that we care about our profession. The engineering profession is in a stressful predicament at the moment. Many CEOs and Board of Director members will claim that we (engineers as a segment of the labor force) are pricing ourselves out of the global market, and thus the decade-long shift offshore of our manufacturing base and now R&D.

The number of our community that will be eligible to take the PE exam drops significantly in 2015 due to the new requirements (30 hours of academic credit past the BS in addition to the 4 years of experience). Basically you will have to have the equivalent of a Masters degree to sit for the PE starting in 2015. Each state is now in the process adopting this change.

We are also routinely outflanked politically by our architectural colleagues. From state to state they are generally more organized and better funded. We (engineers) tend to fight amoungst ourselves.

I'm not trying to shut down discussion or minimize the opinions of anyone contributing to this board. I'm saying that there are internal and external pressures that will be changing to face of engineering and professional registgration in a short period of time. We need to collectively try and be more proactive to try and deal with and favorably shape the coming changes instead of reacting and pointing fingers after the fact.

I fully expect congress to let the floodgate of the H1B visa program to allow a large influx of 'engineers' from Asia to flood into the US to 'fix' our global competitiveness problem. The business lobby will dictate these policies unless we can be more effective. There will be no credible way to evaluate or verify their credentials, and the business community will not care as long as their labor costs decrease. These will effect and displace current US engineering graduates that don't currently see the need or benefit of protecting their profession through registration.

In my opinion, we are currently trying to draw narrow conclusions about ease of exam and possible professional abilities of each other based on exam that tests how quickly we can solve 80 unrelated problems. How this measures the ability of a practicing engineer, I'm not sure. I know I don't work under may 6-minute deadlines. The test has to be something, and I don't have a better solution.

I'm not an alarmist, but I would sure like to see some discussion on how we react to current and proposed changes that we will be faced with.

 

[IlPadrino]

newton,

All interesting points. I didn't know there was an impression Engineers were pricing themselves out of the global market. Do you think State boards will help to insulate our profession from foreign labor?

You wrote "I fully expect congress to let the floodgate of the H1B visa program to allow a large influx of 'engineers' from Asia to flood into the US to 'fix' our global competitiveness problem." How does this fix a global competition problem? I think you're implying that businesses see an opportunity to lower expenses and wouldn't care about qualifications - but registration is still required for an Engineer to do business. What if there was an international professional engineer licensing body? I wouldn't be against the idea... each State could still add to the standard. But it would be scary to think about the impact to American Engineering labor.

I think I've done a poor job explaining my opinion and I fell to the temptation of getting wrapped around exam discipline difficulty. After thinking about your post, I still suggest the solution lies in narrowing the perview of the PE rather than expanding it with more disciplines. Of course, this can be done by State boards choosing to license by discipline like many do for Structural. But if we continue to "dilute" the Engineer, it may get worse.

 

[newton]

IlPadrino,

The issue of our (engineering) labor costs came from a board of director of a major chip manufacturer. They (the board and management) were impressed with the quality of work and the time of construction for a new facility in China. This was not a one-on-one meeting, but a presentation to a group (I don't rate that kind of face time with board level folks). For mechanical, electrical, environmental, etc engineers to 'practice' in industry, no licensure is needed. Those engineers involved in industry will claim they 'do' engineering instead of just 'practicing' all day. This disconnect between industry, consultants, educators, and those employed by state and federal goverment needs to be addressed by our profession.

We have to remember that corporate structures mandate profitability. It's illegal for them to operate in a way detremintal to corporate profits. State boards can certainly protect the engineering workforce that is dedicated to infrastructure (State DOT's, large consulting firms, etc), but I suspect that corporate pressure will work to drive down the costs of the non-licensed workforce (i.e. those that don't need a license to work in an engineering job title).

My point is that all in the engineering community need to come together to shape and protect the future of our profession. It might be in the long term interest to have a two-tier licensing system with the ability to reach out at the lowest-tier level to those that currently don't see a need for licensure, or are in some cases discouraged form seeking it. I know it seems silly, but there are actually managers that don't want to see 'their' engineer with a PE credential due to the worry of losing that person or having to pay more to keep them. This lower teir would be one step up from those that have passed the FE and are engineers-in-training.

Having H1-B visa status means that you are beholden to the company that brings you in. This gives them a measure of price control over that segment of the labor force. I don't mean to imply that US corporations don't care about the qualifications of the engineering workforce. I am saying if they can get someone to do it more cheaply, then they will, regardless of that person's qualifications either here or overseas. If something goes wrong, then they have built in contingencies to deal with that.

I don't know enough to have an opinion about the strength of the current licensing system regarding the specific sub-categories. I do have a healthy respect for all of those that show up every day and prove, by example, that they are worthy of the title of engineer whether they have a license or not. I just wished there was some way to galvanize the engineering community to stand up for the profession.

 

[kevo_55]

I'd like to see someone with an H1-B visa seal something in the US.................

 

[Slugger926]

I'd like to see someone with an H1-B visa seal something in the US.................

Why would they need to when they work directly for the company, or work directly under a PE? Or as I have seen, work for an unlicensed company A doing consulting work for company B that the board of engineers won't prosecute? As far as that goes, company A uses a lot of non-licensed engineers to consult for company B without any reprocussions. Once you get away from Civil Engineering, these abuses get worse.

 

[IlPadrino]

Why would they need to when they work directly for the company, or work directly under a PE? Or as I have seen, work for an unlicensed company A doing consulting work for company B that the board of engineers won't prosecute? As far as that goes, company A uses a lot of non-licensed engineers to consult for company B without any reprocussions. Once you get away from Civil Engineering, these abuses get worse.

If State Boards aren't willing to enforce the laws of the State, aren't there some repercussions a private citizen can help occur? I guess a lawsuit is pretty extreme... I'd thinking casting light on the practice would suffice. Or are you suggesting the engineering products are rubber-stamped and there's no way to highlight it?

 

[Slugger926]

If State Boards aren't willing to enforce the laws of the State, aren't there some repercussions a private citizen can help occur?

This nails it. It probably happens in a lot of states too. I know my board has said that they have agreements from the AG in letter form not to prosecute some companies as a political favor to state legislators. They law makers probably got a $500 campaign donation per our board's Director.

I know there are some videos on youtube of state board meetings where the board is looking the other way over licensure issues.

If they really wanted to enforce the laws, they would be proactive in investigating any company offering technical services.

In most states, offering engineering services is illegal even though the work required probably does not require an engineer's stamp.

Per an attorney, you would have to go to the AG who may be getting political pressure to look the other way.

I guess their could be a lawsuit against the companies offering illegal services, but that could black ball the complainer against any future jobs. It boils down to "he that has the gold makes the rules."

 

[Dleg]

newton - :thumbs: From someone in the trenches, seeing this happen already on the fringes of the US.

 

[IlPadrino]

This nails it. It probably happens in a lot of states too. I know my board has said that they have agreements from the AG in letter form not to prosecute some companies as a political favor to state legislators. They law makers probably got a $500 campaign donation per our board's Director.
I know there are some videos on youtube of state board meetings where the board is looking the other way over licensure issues.

If they really wanted to enforce the laws, they would be proactive in investigating any company offering technical services.

In most states, offering engineering services is illegal even though the work required probably does not require an engineer's stamp.

Per an attorney, you would have to go to the AG who may be getting political pressure to look the other way.

I guess their could be a lawsuit against the companies offering illegal services, but that could black ball the complainer against any future jobs. It boils down to "he that has the gold makes the rules."

I was thinking a suit against the State Board. You'd think there was a way to do it with some "whistle blower" protection (maybe that is only for people within the organization itself?) or anonymity.

 

[slates]

I was thinking a suit against the State Board. You'd think there was a way to do it with some "whistle blower" protection (maybe that is only for people within the organization itself?) or anonymity.

NSPE Board of Ethical Review

The NSPE Board of Ethical Review was established in the 1950s to review factual situations involving ethical dilemmas submitted by engineers, public officials, and members of the public. These anonymous dilemma situations are reviewed by the members of the Board and considered in light of the language of the NSPE Code of Ethics, Board of Ethical Review precedents, and the practical experiences of the seven professional engineers selected from each of NSPE's separate geographical regions who serve on the Board. Following extensive deliberation, the Board issues written opinions which contain a description of the facts, pertinent Code citations, relevant questions, detailed discussions, and conclusions. Some opinions also include dissents.

From your previous post in another thread wouldn't this be at least a starting point?

 

[Ilan]

Wait for three more months, I should have my license by then. B)

I'd like to see someone with an H1-B visa seal something in the US.................

 

[Road Guy]

I kind of miss GT_ME ........... HOF Poster IMO

 

[benbo]

I kind of miss GT_ME ........... HOF Poster IMO

Yeah - all this discussion about the importance of the PE designation when we know it doesn't mean anything unless you are an honors ME graduate from a top three university.

 

[Road Guy]

dont forget 7 figure income!

 

[Sschell]

bump

 

[Ble_PE]

How is this not in the HOF?