ENGINEERING PROFESSION WAY DIFFERENT FROM MEDICAL PROFESSION

I Find it hard and frustrating to believe that despite your input energy, time and money to

obtain your license, most engineers ended up working under a non-license engineer or even

someone who aquired experince on the job without any formal engineering degree. I personally

see this happening where i am working where five consultants who are licensed are reporing to a

non-licensed engineer/person without without formal engineering degree. As developed as America,

one find it difficult to belive that something of this nature can happen. it will never happen in my country.

In medical profession, if you are a nurse, no matter how many years of experience you acquire,

you cannot be made to head a nurse if you do not have a license. Likewise in Medicine.

How does this apply to mech engineering?

I almost think this is the third coming of rrpearso, but the spelling and grammar of the post is way beyond his abilities.

I'm pretty sure the guy is foreign, but maybe he's clever enough to disguise himself as an Asian so he can continue to gripe about the engineering profession on EB.com.

Yeah, well it's probably no more frustrating than 50-somethings with 30+ years real application, construction, and management experience that have to deal with 20 somethings with 4 years experience and two multiple choice tests thinking they're more valuable and better.

Get over yourself man.

I don't mind reporting to a non-licensed individual if the know the business you work in and are useful in ways outside of design. I have had it both ways to varing results. Currently I have the best of both worlds, a PE is the Director of Engineering, he knows his stuff and he is good with our clients. But if he was the same guy without a PE I could care less. Now if he didn't understand the business it would be a problem.

Do you think it is any different than Hospital Administrators tell the Dr and Nurses what to do? Those guys typically are not MD's.

jmbeck said:

Yeah, well it's probably no more frustrating than 50-somethings with 30+ years real application, construction, and management experience that have to deal with 20 somethings with 4 years experience and two multiple choice tests thinking they're more valuable and better.
Get over yourself man.

Click to expand...

:appl:

benbo said:

jmbeck said:

Yeah, well it's probably no more frustrating than 50-somethings with 30+ years real application, construction, and management experience that have to deal with 20 somethings with 4 years experience and two multiple choice tests thinking they're more valuable and better.
Get over yourself man.

Click to expand...

:appl:

Click to expand...

+1

benbo said:

jmbeck said:

Yeah, well it's probably no more frustrating than 50-somethings with 30+ years real application, construction, and management experience that have to deal with 20 somethings with 4 years experience and two multiple choice tests thinking they're more valuable and better.
Get over yourself man.

Click to expand...

:appl:

Click to expand...

No, fundamentally this guy is right.

While I agree that there are plenty of good unlicensed/non-degreed "Engineers" out there, having these situations come up will get in the way of the advancement of the profession.

The medical and legal professions are a prime example of strong professions that take care of this sort of "housekeeping".

And I don't know about the rest of you, but it kinda sucks in my eyes to have slaved away for 4 years, taken and passed FE & PE only to have someone who did little or none of that to be in an equal or better position, whether it's salary or position.

However, the point is moot since we are our own worst enemy.

Maybe there's hope for the next generation. An ideal situation in 30 years or so would be an Engineering curriculum similar to law/med school with 100% licensure across the board.

audioaddict said:

benbo said:

jmbeck said:

Yeah, well it's probably no more frustrating than 50-somethings with 30+ years real application, construction, and management experience that have to deal with 20 somethings with 4 years experience and two multiple choice tests thinking they're more valuable and better.
Get over yourself man.

Click to expand...

:appl:

Click to expand...

No, fundamentally this guy is right.

While I agree that there are plenty of good unlicensed/non-degreed "Engineers" out there, having these situations come up will get in the way of the advancement of the profession.

The medical and legal professions are a prime example of strong professions that take care of this sort of "housekeeping".

And I don't know about the rest of you, but it kinda sucks in my eyes to have slaved away for 4 years, taken and passed FE & PE only to have someone who did little or none of that to be in an equal or better position, whether it's salary or position.

However, the point is moot since we are our own worst enemy.

Maybe there's hope for the next generation. An ideal situation in 30 years or so would be an Engineering curriculum similar to law/med school with 100% licensure across the board.

Click to expand...

No, fundamentally this guy is wrong. Experience trumps a silly multiple choice exam every time. The test is a joke without the required experience, and a 25 year old kid who thinks he's the s*it because he passed this thing is beyond annoying.

A lot of truly remarkable engineers in the defense and high tech industry don't even know what a PE license is. Anyone who thinks they are a better engineer than Steve Wozniak because they managed to get a pass out of NCEES should be on "Comedy Central."

By the way, anybody who think the legal profession is somehow advanced by the licensing process obviously hasn't taken a survey of all the unemployed and underemployed lawyers out there. It doesn't really help their cause much.

The only reason doctors are able to keep their pay and prestige up is because the AMA severely limits the number of medical school graduates. They need osteopaths just to keep up with the work. Half the people on this site, at least, would not be able to "practice" engineering if we had the same set-up as doctors. And that's a shame too, because I've had nurses and PAs with long years of experience that I trust more than some doctors.

Interesting responses. I agree somewhat with the original poster and I believe NSPE mostly supports it as well (for whatever that is worth). I personally would prefer a board certified md with experience over a nurse or pa. In my opinion, a person leading an engineering firm at any level should at the least have an engineering degree with some exceptions (thats my opinion - so keep your shirts on). Any engineer worth his salt will step up and take the exam at some point, if for anything, respect amongst his peers, who are required by law to have passed this exam to practice. I suppose you could have a VP of an engineering firm with experience and no formal engineering degree that makes business decisions only but, I would have a problem if he started dictating how much we need to charge for an analysis or how to check somethinf for which he has no formal training on how to perform. That being said, one of the best (PE) engineers I know does not have an actual engineering degree but, was allowed to take (and pass) the PE exam back in the early 80's (when licensure requirements were different) with 2 years of "engineering studies" at a university, an associate of applied science, a 4 year BS (non engineering degree), and experience with stress analysis before I was in diapers (in the 60's). This would support some of the "get over yourself" responses but, seems to be the exception rather than the norm. However, yes there are exceptional people without engineering degrees that are qualified to practice engineering or lead an engineering firm but, in my mind they should prove a minimum competency level by taking the PE exam (and most do so). Every situation has an exception, but the test is the common denominator for a minimum level of competency and experience is a requirement to take the test ( in most states).

Wow... what a blast from the past! Here are my two-and-a-half cents (adjusted for inflation!):

I agree with the OP. The world is a better place when supervisors have the same qualifications as the people they supervise. There are lots of examples beyond nurses and doctors where this is applied. In NAVFAC all supervisors of Contract Specialists (contracting officers) have to have a contracting warrant themselves. This is done, in part, to make sure supervisors are able to appreciate the risk decisions contract specialists make. Otherwise you could imagine a supervisor criticizing the risk decisions; they couldn't over-ride them (it would be easy for the KO to refuse) but they sure could make unfair evaluations.

To me, the real question is why *wouldn't* the supervise be licensed/warranted/etc.?

I am licensed Engineer with a MS degree and was asked by my previous employer to report to a guy who is an Engineering technology major. I refused, changed my job with a title as Team lead in a F-100 company. Hey by the way got 10% pay raise with job change, new office and excellent benefits.

I have very little or no respect to guys with BS degree. BS = Bull S**t and on top of that Bachelor of Technology...Hell no....

So you learned so much in your MS program that a BS pales by comparison? Pray tell, what were the high points?

I find it frustrating how many engineers there are with blatant inferiority concepts over not being doctors or lawyers. Of course the engineering profession is different than medicine. Why would they be the same?

This sense of entitlement is completely ridiculous. You go to school and acquire professional credentials as a way to better position yourself in the real-world marketplace. Things don't get bought and sold based on who studied the hardest. Past successful experience and real-world knowledge of what your department designs should trump credentials in deciding who should fall where in the chain of command. From a business sense, why would a company president put a PE in charge of a non-licensed engineer if the non-licensed engineer would do a better job? What's best for the company is to judge on ability, now credentials.

Your job isn't a reward for doing good in school or getting your PE. The fact that you did both of those things means that you are likely a better candidate for a good engineering job, but if management knows from experience that a non-licensed engineer is better than you, then stop pretending you learned it all by passing one test and pay attention to what you can learn from the non-licensed engineer you're working under. If you don't think you can learn anything from him, then get a new job. But don't act like you deserve to be his just because you passed a test once.

In private practice the ability to "win work" will always pay better than the ability to "do work"

My sentiments exactly Tim. And no doubt RoadGuy, I've seen this first hand.