Passing Percent

[benbo]

I think an engineer should have to work in a related field performing installation and maintenance for a period of time as part of the internship EIT process prior to qualifying to sit for the exam. But, that's a different topic.

I agree with this - or at least I think it is really weird that someone would spend a bunch of time desinging things in an office and never want to get out and see them physically. You get a whole other feel for paper vs. realtiy.

I've worked with guys that had been CAD techs who did their time in an engineering office and filed the application, passed with 70% and now wield their PEness all over the place.
Yikes..

I've got to say I expected there was some BS in applications, but this is a little worrisome to me. In CA I think you need three recommendations from PEs who know your work. They must certify (and I know this because I filled out a rec yesterday) that you are competent to take responsible charge of engineering work. I assume the rules are similar everywhere.

If what you are saying is true, three engineers basically all lied on this person's application. If this is widespread, what good is an apprenticeship or anything like that? People could just as easily lie about that.

If this goes on a lot, they need a much harder test. And they probably need to go back to the old style where they get rid of the multiple choice and actually ask people to design things on paper.

 

[navyasw02]

I've got to say I expected there was some BS in applications, but this is a little worrisome to me. In CA I think you need three recommendations from PEs who know your work. They must certify (and I know this because I filled out a rec yesterday) that you are competent to take responsible charge of engineering work. I assume the rules are similar everywhere.
If what you are saying is true, three engineers basically all lied on this person's application. If this is widespread, what good is an apprenticeship or anything like that? People could just as easily lie about that.

If this goes on a lot, they need a much harder test. And they probably need to go back to the old style where they get rid of the multiple choice and actually ask people to design things on paper.

The government rules are a bit different so it is very feasible for that to happen. As long as you are doing engineering work for the government, you can get references from other people who work in the government, regardless of whether or not they're PEs. So feasibly, someone who has no clue how to design stuff can get references without any experience and any risk to the people providing the references. It's good and bad. Obviously it's bad when those not qualified get to sit for and possibly pass the test, but it's good because folks like me without the traditional design experience can sit the test.

 

[benbo]

The government rules are a bit different so it is very feasible for that to happen. As long as you are doing engineering work for the government, you can get references from other people who work in the government, regardless of whether or not they're PEs. So feasibly, someone who has no clue how to design stuff can get references without any experience and any risk to the people providing the references. It's good and bad. Obviously it's bad when those not qualified get to sit for and possibly pass the test, but it's good because folks like me without the traditional design experience can sit the test.

Well, I work for the government, albeit the state government. Here in CA it doesn't matter where you work.

The PE is a state license, so I'm not sure how it is in your state.

But in my state it doesn't matter where you work. If you want a California PE you need to get someone (I think three people) to sign your references. They may not need to be PEs in all cases, but they all answer the same questions - basically whether you are competent and whether they are in a position to judge your competence. They have a list of Yes/No checkboxes that ask those specific questions, along with asking the reference to verify the experience.

So if a reference doesn't know anything about your work, or if they aren't competent to evaluate it, they are lying on the reference. It may even be a crime for all I know. That's in CA.

 

[navyasw02]

Well, I work for the government, albeit the state government. Here in CA it doesn't matter where you work.
The PE is a state license, so I'm not sure how it is in your state.

But in my state it doesn't matter where you work. If you want a California PE you need to get someone (I think three people) to sign your references. They may not need to be PEs in all cases, but they all answer the same questions - basically whether you are competent and whether they are in a position to judge your competence. They have a list of Yes/No checkboxes that ask those specific questions, along with asking the reference to verify the experience.

So if a reference doesn't know anything about your work, or if they aren't competent to evaluate it, they are lying on the reference. It may even be a crime for all I know. That's in CA.

I'm in CA too. They do have to be familiar with your work, but they dont have to be PEs. Besides the threat of perjury on an official form, there's no accountability for non PE's for signing off on someone who isnt qualified. Since the reference form is subjective, there's nothing to even perjure yourself with other than by vouching for incorrect dates. In CA, it doesn't even have to be a supervisor, it can be a coworker so Joe Blow can just go get a few of his buddies to sign off a form and walk into the test.

 

[benbo]

I'm in CA too. They do have to be familiar with your work, but they dont have to be PEs. Besides the threat of perjury on an official form, there's no accountability for non PE's for signing off on someone who isnt qualified. Since the reference form is subjective, there's nothing to even perjure yourself with other than by vouching for incorrect dates. In CA, it doesn't even have to be a supervisor, it can be a coworker so Joe Blow can just go get a few of his buddies to sign off a form and walk into the test.

You must certify under penalty of perjury that you personally examined the engineers work, and that they are technically competent, ethical, capable of responsible, charge, etc. If someone asked me to sign and I didn't think they were qualified but said they were, that's lying. Whether they could prove it in court is sort of immaterial. I'm not talking about getting away with something.

Like I said, if that much unethical behavior goes on, whether they are PEs or not, they need to make a much harder exam. But even that isn't really going to help if people don't care about behaving in a responsible manner. THe test is a joke, not to mention you can get 30% wrong. You could very well get asked to stamp off something you got wrong, or know nothing about. You are the only one who decides what you are qualified to stamp off. Once you get your license, the only thing that keeps anyone from stamping off something they know nothing about is their own personal ethics. We are in big trouble with engineers like that. There is no way to test ethics on a written test. You have to rely on references.

You know of specific cases where people falsified references?

 

[benbo]

Here's the CA reference form.

http://www.pels.ca.gov/pubs/forms/perefsfrm.pdf

It states that references must be technically qualified to evaluate your work and must personally look at the work. And you need four of them. It's a pretty sad state of affairs if it is that easy to find four colleagues willing to lie and say you are competent when they think you aren't.

Most hiring and similar decisiions in the world are done based on personal references. Even in jobs which require examinations, I still rely on personal refernces to make my choice. A real estate agent needs to pass the exam, but I certainly wouldn't just pick any agent out of a book merely because they passed the test. I'd look for references and evaluations. Same with doctors, lawyers, CPAs, whatever.

Well, I think I've exhausted my opinion on this topic. I guess we're just going to have to rely on luck to give us safe engineering designs, because I'm learning there are huge amounts of cheating going on, and the exam certainly isn't enough to give me any confidence.

I still think you have to be pretty smart to get to the point of even sitting for the PE. Maybe not in all cases, but generally.

 

[cdcengineer]

Well, I work for the government, albeit the state government. Here in CA it doesn't matter where you work.
The PE is a state license, so I'm not sure how it is in your state.

But in my state it doesn't matter where you work. If you want a California PE you need to get someone (I think three people) to sign your references. They may not need to be PEs in all cases, but they all answer the same questions - basically whether you are competent and whether they are in a position to judge your competence. They have a list of Yes/No checkboxes that ask those specific questions, along with asking the reference to verify the experience.

So if a reference doesn't know anything about your work, or if they aren't competent to evaluate it, they are lying on the reference. It may even be a crime for all I know. That's in CA.

I'm in CA too. They do have to be familiar with your work, but they dont have to be PEs. Besides the threat of perjury on an official form, there's no accountability for non PE's for signing off on someone who isnt qualified. Since the reference form is subjective, there's nothing to even perjure yourself with other than by vouching for incorrect dates. In CA, it doesn't even have to be a supervisor, it can be a coworker so Joe Blow can just go get a few of his buddies to sign off a form and walk into the test.

I worked with Joe Blow. That guy was sketchy. He'd sign off on any Joker's experience.

 

[IlPadrino]

The government rules are a bit different so it is very feasible for that to happen. As long as you are doing engineering work for the government, you can get references from other people who work in the government, regardless of whether or not they're PEs. So feasibly, someone who has no clue how to design stuff can get references without any experience and any risk to the people providing the references. It's good and bad. Obviously it's bad when those not qualified get to sit for and possibly pass the test, but it's good because folks like me without the traditional design experience can sit the test.

There's no such thing as "government rules are a bit different". Licensing is a state issue and each state makes their own rules. I haven't looked at all 53 jurisdictions, but I'd be surprised to find any that gives government workers a break on experience requirements. I'd even wager large amounts of beer!

Regardless of the state, I do agree government work makes it easier to document experience because in theory they're all employees of the same company (the Executive Branch). It's also a lot less laughable if you restrict to Department of Defense, Department of the Army, or just Corps of Engineers.

Benbo: I can think of no fairer way than Education, Experience, and Examination to measure "minimally competent". It isn't perfect, but what would be better?

 

[benbo]

Benbo: I can think of no fairer way than Education, Experience, and Examination to measure "minimally competent". It isn't perfect, but what would be better?

I agree it's the best way. In fact I think it is perfectly fine. It's only a problem if people are regularly doctoring up experience making that portion invalid. My issue is that it semed like people were implying that portion of the "trifecta" is some sort of joke (and to a certain extent the education portion). THe implication being that the only thing really holiding back hordes of incompetent nincompoops from stamping off critical documents is the all-powerful P&P exam. THe exam is a good final arbiter, but I still believe in almost all cases you need significant intelligence and competence even to be in a position to sit for the exam.

 

[IlPadrino]

My issue is that it semed like people were implying that portion of the "trifecta" is some sort of joke (and to a certain extent the education portion).

I wouldn't say it's a joke, but I'm certain it's the easiest of the three to subvert. And I'd bet large amounts of beer it is the most often subverted. I don't trust *anyone* just because they have a license... except maybe doctors. As I think you pointed out, the work product is the *ONLY* sure way to judge competence.

 

[cdcengineer]

I worked with a guy who got a degree on TV (mail-order)

He's now the PE running the MEP department at a firm I used to work at.

 

[benbo]

My issue is that it semed like people were implying that portion of the "trifecta" is some sort of joke (and to a certain extent the education portion).

I wouldn't say it's a joke, but I'm certain it's the easiest of the three to subvert. And I'd bet large amounts of beer it is the most often subverted. I don't trust *anyone* just because they have a license... except maybe doctors. As I think you pointed out, the work product is the *ONLY* sure way to judge competence.

How do you tell a person's work product unless you have worked with them? In over 90% of the working world, it is done by references.

Do you personally know anyone who has subverted the reference process? I can't think of anyone I know, but that's not a whole lot of people. I think it may be easy to get one person to lie, maybe two. To get four people to file false references would be pretty tough. But that's just my experience with people I know.

To me, the degree is the most difficult thing to get - because my degree was hard to earn, far harder than the exam. I know somebody posted here that they got a "mail order" degree and that qualified them to sit for the PE. Either they're joking or this is one state that doesn't require an ABET degree or boatloads of experience.

As far as the test, it is a reasonable third step. Put another barrier in the way and maybe it eliminates a few more non-qualified people. But the test by itself doesn't say a whole lot about a person's competence to do work. Let's say I passed with a 75%. That means I got 25% of the questions wrong. I don't beleive that simply getting a question correct on that test says anything about my abilitiy to person engineering work in the area I got correct. Conversely, just because I happened to miss a "six minute" question on the test doesn't mean I'm not qualified to do work in the area I missed.

 

[cdcengineer]

Not really mail-order, but he was a math major who turned CAD tech who turned engineer..

 

[benbo]

One other addendum. Just because you or I encounter some engineer who we feel is incompetent or unqualified and slipped through the cracks does not mean everyone feels that way aboutthem. I'm sure somewhere in this world I have run across people who wonder who falisified benbo's references. And I passed the test.