# B.S. plus 30



## Dleg

I know we have brought this up before - the new rule that will go into effect in 2015 requiring engineers to have 30 credit hours in addition to a Bachelor of Science degree to become licensed - essentially a Masters degree - but I thought I would link to the latest NCEES Licensure Exchange newsletter, where there is an interesting editorial by NCEES Treasurer Larry Smith, P.E. (scroll down to page 12 of 17 of the pdf file).

Once again, I do not disagree with the principle, but I think it is a shame that this is not being addressed by a more appropriate organization such as ABET, rather than the engineering licensing boards.

The article has kind of a "I had to walk 5 miles, barefoot, in the snow" kind of thing going on, and rubs me a bit wrong. I would think that anyone who is presently an engineer, and under the age of say 40, might also get the feeling that we are being diminshed as a lesser class of engineers than our seniors. Maybe we are, I don't know, but damn!

ld-025:


----------



## Dark Knight

NCEES doing it's thing again. That is the way they work. They are the Masters and Commanders, the Gods at the Olympus. They say and we obey.Period....no chance to express an opinion.

That is how they dealt with the calculators, and with the test format. "We decided that this is going to be like that and that is the bottom line because we said so"

Honestly I hate abusers and NCEES is nothing than an abusive organization. They have the power and they use it as their discretion. If only NCEES could involve us a little more....use a more democratic process. But that would be too much to ask for...right?

As Dleg said the issue should be addressed by ABET, who is the organization that deals with colleges. The NCEES should stay away from this. They can work together with ABET but that would be like giving away power and they are power maniacs.

I do also understand the point. I just do not like the way they are sticking it to the engineers. I can see MANY engineers unable to try to be licensed because money issues. It is hard enough to pay undergraduated credits. Imagine post graduated.

At least we have places like EB were we can at least rant or vent but the day will come when NCEES will also control what can be said on messages boards. They already make us close on test week-ends.... do not they?


----------



## chaosiscash

BIO,

I understand how you feel, but you have to remember that NCEES does not control any of the PE laws or rules, they only make suggestions that the state boards, individually, choose whether or not to follow. If you disagree with a particular issue, I urge you to get involved with your state board. Meetings (at least here in TN, and I assume everywhere) are required by law to be both open to the public and announced ahead of time. You also should have a local "representative" from your area of the state that you can call and speak with.

You also have to remember that both NCEES and the state boards are often run by PEs from academia. Why, you ask? Well, the answer is simple. They have the time. The rest of us in the world that work 40-50 hours a week for 50 weeks a year just don't want to fool with the time required to be involved. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be. People that work for a living in a profession understand the profession the best and should be the ones making the decisions. But if we don't get involved in the process, we've got nobody to blame but ourselves.

The lack of a real professional organization (i.e., lobbying organization) within engineering is a prime example of this overall problem. Most of us can probably agree that NSPE has lost their focus. And the reason that the other primary professions that we like to compare ourselves to, the doctors and lawyers, have done better than us both from a financial and prestige standpoint is that they have professional organizations that work for and lobby for them with the government, both state and federal. Where as it seems our so-called professional organization, NSPE, is more concerned with training, PR, and "networking".

OK, I'm off my soapbox now. And don't get me wrong BIO, I know how you feel, and I'm not trying to single you out or anything. I think a lot of us feel like we don't have any control over our profession. But until we do something about it ourselves, nobody is going to fix it for us.


----------



## Road Guy

well you also have to consider NCEES doesnt have any authority in any of the 50 states, they are just making a recomendation.

They have been trying to make minor tweaks to prof. registration laws in my state for about a decade and the legislature hasnt even read them on the floor.

I still dont agree with needing a masters degree, I dont care if the community doesnt rank us up there with doctors &amp; lawyers because personally most doctors and lawyers that I know are assholes.


----------



## chaosiscash

Road Guy said:


> I still dont agree with needing a masters degree, I dont care if the community doesnt rank us up there with doctors &amp; lawyers because personally most doctors and lawyers that I know are assholes.


Maybe so, but they are rich assholes.


----------



## Dark Knight

We all can express our opinion and can have different point of views. With that said it is OK Chaos, I do not feel singled out. You did it with class and respect so no worries my friend. But the truth is that it is frutrating. Most of the times NCEES "suggests" and the fudging state boards do not even flinch and do what NCEES "suggested". Who the heck took the decission of not reporting scores? Why? How about the calculators? What are the criteria to include a calc on the list of banned or allowed? Things like that are the ones that really bother me.

One of these days NCEES will suggest the Boards to make us take the test every 5 years so we can renew the license. Sounds crazy? Wait and see. What will we win with that? Nothing...nada...What will NCEES and the Boards will win?....$$$$$$$$hhhhhh.

Maybe I am over the top but it is the way I feel. It is very uncomfortable to have an organization, just one, having so much decissional power over our profession. It is not fair.


----------



## RIP - VTEnviro

chaosiscash said:


> The lack of a real professional organization (i.e., lobbying organization) within engineering is a prime example of this overall problem. Most of us can probably agree that NSPE has lost their focus.


I'm involved with the local ASCE chapter and atteded a regional seminar last month. They are advocating the B+30 concept. So it's not that the professional societies are fighting it. Some are embracing it.

I'm of mixed feelings on this. I have my PE and a master's degree so it doesn't impact me either way. I know the rules don't technically say a master's degree. But really, who's gonna take 30 credits and not bother to get a degree out of it?

I don't think going to graduate school necessarily makes you any more prepared for engineering in the real world. I think the year or two of experience you lose assuming you go to school full time hurts you more than the extra schooling helps. Grad school teaches you advanced and theoretical techniques of doing things, which is great if you go into R&amp;D. But for consultants and regulators, it doesn't really translate well.

Also, there's enough hoops to jump through to licensure in the first place. Adding another, particularly an expensive one like this, is going to scare some good candidates off.

At the same time though, it does make the license a more prestigious thing. And having less PE's running around out there makes those already licensed more valuable and employable.


----------



## jfusilloPE

chaosiscash said:


> Maybe so, but they are rich assholes.


That may be the case, but as a senior project manager I am fighting daily to get decent payable rates from my clients to make money for the company.

Does anyone really think that with the additional education we will rank in the same pay class as doctors or lawyers? Until the insurance industry starts to dole out money for engineering services rendered, we will still be overworked and underpaid.


----------



## Dark Knight

jfusilloPE said:


> That may be the case, but as a senior project manager I am fighting daily to get decent payable rates from my clients to make money for the company.
> Does anyone really think that with the additional education we will rank in the same pay class as doctors or lawyers? Until the insurance industry starts to dole out money for engineering services rendered, we will still be overworked and underpaid.


I thought about that but most likely the additional education we will be forced to obtain will not be reflected in our pay. We will stay as we are, salary wise, but with another hurdle to jump.


----------



## chaosiscash

jfusilloPE said:


> That may be the case, but as a senior project manager I am fighting daily to get decent payable rates from my clients to make money for the company.
> Does anyone really think that with the additional education we will rank in the same pay class as doctors or lawyers? Until the insurance industry starts to dole out money for engineering services rendered, we will still be overworked and underpaid.


I agree, and thats my point. Additional education isn't going to change that. What is going to is agressive lobbying and organization. I am, in general, not pro-union. But the reason Doctors and Lawyers make more money isn't education, its because there is legislation in place to keep non-licensed folks from doing their work, and the licensed ones won't work cheap. As long as there are engineers out there that are willing to work for less than what they are worth, all of our rates will be affected.


----------



## snickerd3

Looks like Illinois is leaning towards the +30 hours. From their rather vague Board meeting mintues...They have discussed the new NCEES "requirements" for degree + 30 hours and have talked about the need to amend the state boards rules and posibily the Act.


----------



## Undertaker

This is very important.Is understandable to fear the unknown but my opinion is that this might be a good thing in the long run.Anyways the now PEs don't have to worry about this.You are PEs already.I also see a drop in the numbers of engineering students.So until 2015 don't worry about it.


----------



## benbo

Not all lawyers and doctors are created equal. Plus lawyers and doctors are two different animals.

There are so many lawyers now, that a lot of them cannot even make a living. My mom was a lawyer for 35 years and never made over 40,000. There are gov't lawyers working with me who make less than I do. And lot's of lawyers can't find work at all. Unless you graduate from a top school, or really hustle to make your bones, you are not going to get super rich as a lawyer.

As stated here, doctors make a lot of money because of the law of supply and demand. They strictly control entrance to med school and the gov't controls what medical professionals can do. THey could easily allow three times as many people into med school and still have competent docs. But with that said, even the medical regulations and pay is changing. I know a lot of doctors from various ways - two sick parents, my own illnesses, I went to school with a lot of them, and I have a lot of them as neighbors. THey make a good living but not all are super rich. It depends on their specialization. My own pcp makes about $150,000 a year. Granted, that is a pretty good salary, but not a fortune. More and more, regulations are being relaxed and now physicians assistants and nurse practictioners do a lot of the work formerly only performed by physicians. And as we move to more HMOs and maybe even some sort of gov't health care, salaries will have to go down.

The real problem with engineering salaries is that we allow foreign engineers in at too great a ratre and for too low a salary. Engineering is fairly self regulating - it is hard and not many people understand it. That's why fewer and fewer Americans are becoming engineers. I'm all for HB-1 visas as long as they can't find the engineers here, and are not an excuse for companies to pay slave wages just because they can get away with it. I don't think requiring a Master's degree is going to help anything. And if they had the kind of selectivity they have for med school for engineering school, I'm not really sure I would have made it. And I do a good job. I don't think that is necessary.


----------



## squishles10

I can see how in some areas of CE this would be helpful. For example, I'm in WR and those of us with a Master's seem to have a better grasp on concepts. I started in Land Development, and I couldn't tell you one thing that I got out of my Master's that would have helped me with that job. Florida has a rule where (not 100% accurate here, don't yell at me) if you don't pass the PE (&amp; the EIT I believe) after so many tries (3? 4?) you have to take 12 hours in your deficient area. This seems to me to make more sense than making everyone do this when for a majority it may not be necessary.


----------



## udpolo15

benbo said:


> Not all lawyers and doctors are created equal. Plus lawyers and doctors are two different animals.
> There are so many lawyers now, that a lot of them cannot even make a living. My mom was a lawyer for 35 years and never made over 40,000. There are gov't lawyers working with me who make less than I do. And lot's of lawyers can't find work at all. Unless you graduate from a top school, or really hustle to make your bones, you are not going to get super rich as a lawyer.


exactly.

only a handful of lawyers work for biglaw where the starting salaries are $150K+. the flipside is that they give up their life. I would say most lawyers start at $60K or below.

my father-in-law closed down his practice because he wasn't making any money. I think he was paying over $100K a year in malpractice insurance.

also both doctors and lawyers don't have a company that will pay for their advanced education and most are saddled with significant debt when they get out of school


----------



## Guest

chaosiscash said:


> I understand how you feel, but you have to remember that NCEES does not control any of the PE laws or rules, they only make suggestions that the state boards, individually, choose whether or not to follow. If you disagree with a particular issue, I urge you to get involved with your state board.


I do not entirely agree with your point here. NCEES, et al has gotten into the business of FOISTING products onto the state licensing agencies. In just the ~ 6 yrs I have been actively participating in obtaining licensure I have seen ELSES:

1. Become the RESPONSIBLE party for developing the exams and scores for the P.E. exams. They do this under the 'model' that your license should be readily portable,

2. Develop an arm called ELSES that administers the exam for the majority of the states, and

3. Develop a NCEES Record program that practically every state is buying into as NECESSARY in order to obtain licensure by endorsement in other states.

My fear is that NCEES has become so embedded in the licensure process that state boards have almost ABDICATED thier duties in favor of a national clearinghouse. I believe if NCEES being the money whores that they appear to be want to push requiring the 30+ concept they will be able to easily foist that upon states because of the voice they already have in the decision-making process.

While I agree with you that becoming involved in your state boards decisions is necessary, it WILL NOT prevent the expansion of the NCEES power machine to continue to dictate wishes and desires upon the individual state licensing boards. All of this in the name of conformity.

[/rant]



jfusilloPE said:


> Until the insurance industry starts to dole out money for engineering services rendered, we will still be overworked and underpaid.


This is very true. Also, I have seen some of these insurance instruments ABUSED to the point that those insurance companies are wary of establishing such policies. The only way to get cashflow ergo better pay is to have a better payor source. Insurance companies will be critical as engineers want to get paid better for QUALITY services.



benbo said:


> There are so many lawyers now, that a lot of them cannot even make a living. My mom was a lawyer for 35 years and never made over 40,000. There are gov't lawyers working with me who make less than I do. And lot's of lawyers can't find work at all. Unless you graduate from a top school, or really hustle to make your bones, you are not going to get super rich as a lawyer.


Very good points all the way around benbo, as usual. Interesting fact in Florida. In Leon County, there is a tentative settlement between the teachers union and the education board to provide an across the board pay increase of ~4%. If this goes into effect, the base pay for a starting teacher will exceed the base pay for a starting attorney for the State of Florida. :true:



benbo said:


> The real problem with engineering salaries is that we allow foreign engineers in at too great a ratre and for too low a salary. Engineering is fairly self regulating - it is hard and not many people understand it. That's why fewer and fewer Americans are becoming engineers. I'm all for HB-1 visas as long as they can't find the engineers here, and are not an excuse for companies to pay slave wages just because they can get away with it. I don't think requiring a Master's degree is going to help anything. And if they had the kind of selectivity they have for med school for engineering school, I'm not really sure I would have made it. And I do a good job. I don't think that is necessary.


Another very good point - I see this principle directly applied to state employment. My co-workers become irritated as to why wages remain stagnant and I reply the simple answer is because people will continue to accept state employment at those wages. Period. The ugly answer is that they do it because they can.

I also believe that requiring a masters degree is NOT going to increase pay or quality of work that professional engineers provide today. If anything, it is going to artificially cut out folks because of grades, financial circumstances, etc. I am with you benbo, if my graduate school exercised competitive admission, I doubt I would have been admitted either. I know I am not top rung but I am not exactly fodder either !! 

JR


----------



## Road Guy

I just dont believe you make money based on extra education, you make money because of supply &amp; demand. Lawyers are getting saturated and thats going to drive down there fee's. Especially ones with minimal experience.

My brother in law is a doctor, works 2 days a week and makes what I make working 5 days a week, but he's an asshole, and I dont want to be an asshole, not even a rich asshole.

I have watched salaries in my area (Atlanta) boom, because there is a lot of "need", development, traffic, people, etc. People are graduating today asking for $50K in this town, its crazy (but slowing down a little)

I dont think there is a universal trigger that is going to make all engineers make 6 figures, but in all honesty I dont know many of my peers with PE's and 10+ years experience that dont already make $100K or are either in the $90's.

I think we, as engineers, should work to make sure states dont start accepting Bachelors degrees from india, china, and the like without first making them get an advanced degree from within the US (which I still think is BS) thats probably going to be a bigger threat than a few extra classes (&amp; if you look at your transcripts I bet most of you already have the # of credits NCEES is recommending) I do &amp; my school isnt even one "of those big ones"


----------



## Guest

squishles10 said:


> Florida has a rule where (not 100% accurate here, don't yell at me) if you don't pass the PE (&amp; the EIT I believe) after so many tries (3? 4?) you have to take 12 hours in your deficient area.


You have three (3) tries in order to pass. The FBPE will prescribe a course of study in order to remedy your deficiencies (not necessarily allow you to take courses in your deficient area). 

JR


----------



## chaosiscash

jregieng said:


> While I agree with you that becoming involved in your state boards decisions is necessary, it WILL NOT prevent the expansion of the NCEES power machine to continue to dictate wishes and desires upon the individual state licensing boards. All of this in the name of conformity.


Maybe you are right. That comes down to whether or not people believe that you can actively make a difference in your government (be it state or federal). And maybe NCEES would continue to set policy even if people were more involved with the state boards. But if they never even try, I know that NCEES will take them over.

Just my :2cents:


----------



## Dark Knight

Thanks for reminding me that JR.NCEES created ELSES so they can administer the test too. Define monopoly and absolute power.

Maybe Milton Bradley Parker Brothers will design a Monopoly game with a NCEES theme soon.

I can imagine that....NCEES South Carolina would be the most expensive property in the table...GO TO TEST SITE. The game can be arranaged with the licensing boards, the tokens can be representative of each discipline or the pencils.

One of the cards will say....You did not pass the PE test Pay $325 and GO TO TEST SITE.....or this one.....GET OUT OF TEST SITE FREE.

Sorry...got side tracked. Back to the issue. NCEES has way to much power and influence over the boards. That is a fact and that kind of situation is not good in any area.

edited to correct a mental fart....


----------



## chaosiscash

BringItOn said:


> I can imagine that....NCEES South Carolina would be the most expensive property in the table...GO TO TEST SITE.


That I can definately agree with. After all NCEES's office is right across the lake from Clemson, which is, of course, God's Country.


----------



## RIP - VTEnviro

BringItOn said:


> Thanks for reminding me that JR.NCEES created ELSES so they can administer the test too. Define monopoly and absolute power.
> Maybe Milton Bradley will design a Monopoly game with a NCEES theme soon.


Actually, it's Parker Brothers that does Monopoly.

You could have the railroads be the 4 NCEES pencil colors.


----------



## udpolo15

I thought I would chime in on the whole issue of the NCEES and its power. Straight from their website

"The National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES) is a national non-profit organization composed of engineering and surveying licensing boards representing all states and U.S. territories."

It doesn't exist to tell the states what to do, but exist for the states to collaborate on what to do. If each state made their own test, there would be no way to compare engineers from state to state. That is bad, we should all want standardization. Without a standard licensing procedure companies may not invest in new areas because they are unsure of the qualifications of the engineering workforce in that state.

I don't see much how it is all that different than the ABA for lawyers or NBME for doctors.


----------



## IlPadrino

jregieng said:


> I do not entirely agree with your point here. NCEES, et al has gotten into the business of FOISTING products onto the state licensing agencies. In just the ~ 6 yrs I have been actively participating in obtaining licensure I have seen ELSES:
> 1. Become the RESPONSIBLE party for developing the exams and scores for the P.E. exams. They do this under the 'model' that your license should be readily portable,
> 
> 2. Develop an arm called ELSES that administers the exam for the majority of the states, and
> 
> 3. Develop a NCEES Record program that practically every state is buying into as NECESSARY in order to obtain licensure by endorsement in other states.
> 
> My fear is that NCEES has become so embedded in the licensure process that state boards have almost ABDICATED thier duties in favor of a national clearinghouse. I believe if NCEES being the money whores that they appear to be want to push requiring the 30+ concept they will be able to easily foist that upon states because of the voice they already have in the decision-making process.
> 
> While I agree with you that becoming involved in your state boards decisions is necessary, it WILL NOT prevent the expansion of the NCEES power machine to continue to dictate wishes and desires upon the individual state licensing boards. All of this in the name of conformity.


JR,

How is this any different than other professions such as lawyers? Each State has their own "bar" and entrance requires, among other things in almost all States, passing of the Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) which is developed by the National Conference of Bar Examiners. They make it much easier and more economical for the State Boards, that's for sure.

Don't get me wrong... I'm no fan of NCEES - but it's mostly because for a non-profit they sure do make me pay them a lot of money.


----------



## Road Guy

you know this whole concept is more of a reason we need to go ahead with our new prof. engineering organization we talked about forming.


----------



## Tark62

> My fear is that NCEES has become so embedded in the licensure process that state boards have almost ABDICATED thier duties in favor of a national clearinghouse. I believe if NCEES being the money whores that they appear to be want to push requiring the 30+ concept they will be able to easily foist that upon states because of the voice they already have in the decision-making process.
> While I agree with you that becoming involved in your state boards decisions is necessary, it WILL NOT prevent the expansion of the NCEES power machine to continue to dictate wishes and desires upon the individual state licensing boards. All of this in the name of conformity.


If you read PE discussion forums, you'll find that candidates for licensure by reciprocity routinely complain about the hassles caused by differences in state licensing laws. For example:

- State A strictly demands an ABET BS degree, while State B doesn't;

- State D wants 8 years of professional experience, while State E only needs 6;

- State C wants supplemental civil exams, while no other state requires this;

- State F wants 4 PE references, and they have to be from your discipline, while State G only requires 3 PE references from any discipline;

etc, etc, etc

I think this the first time I've ever seen someone make the opposite complaint, i.e. that state licensing laws are becoming too uniform and standardized.


----------



## Dleg

I'm personally all for NCEES. I think they do a pretty decent job, all things considered (such as all they can do is "recommend" policies to states). I agree that it would total chaos if there were no unifying organization to provide at least the basic framework for licensing amongst all the states.

And while I don't like paying fees, when you consider all that they have to do, and the number of professionals that must work on their products (all while wanting to be paid a decent salary just like us), it makes sense to me.


----------



## Dleg

As far as engineers making better pay, I agree with the principle that we get what we settle for. I live in a part of the country that Bush wants to immitate with his proposed "guest worker" plan for the mainland. Out of a population of about 60,000, more than half are foreign workers. There are a handful of PEs (I can count 12 from memory) who own businesses or work in the government, and probably 100 or more non-licensed foreign engineers working for (no shit) $3.55 an hour - the going minimum wage here - or about $25-30k, if they are lucky enough to land a job in the public works or utility. And you know what? They're happy to work for those wages, and happy to show their bosses that they can do what YOU can do, for a tiny fraction of what you expect to be paid.

And while a Doctor can command higher prices because he's saving your life, there's a lot less incentive for people to pay more for engineering services. In fact, in my experience, most developers will usually opt for the lowest cost provider, not necessarily the premium services. The industry here has borne this out: The "quality" firms who hire US-educated engineers &amp; PEs only get the government work, where the RFP requirements are strict in what is required. The commercial development is almost universally performed by the $3.55 engineers, who often work for the construction contractor (another cost savings), and have their work rubber-stamped by some PE willing to risk the ethical violation to get all that business. This, I feel, is a pre-view of what is going to be happening in the Mainland US over the next few decades. It's already happening in manufacturing - a skeleton staff of engineers in the mainland come up with the ideas and concepts, while all the detailed engineering and manufacturing is done off-shore for pennies on the dollar. It's only a matter of time before that happens to the A&amp;E business.

So with all that said, I don't think the BS +30 matters so much, but if it will help me keep my competitive edge over the foreigners, then I guess I don't have much choice but to accept it.


----------



## Flyer_PE

Dleg said:


> This, I feel, is a pre-view of what is going to be happening in the Mainland US over the next few decades. It's already happening in manufacturing - a skeleton staff of engineers in the mainland come up with the ideas and concepts, while all the detailed engineering and manufacturing is done off-shore for pennies on the dollar. It's only a matter of time before that happens to the A&amp;E business.


In some cases I think the cheap off-shore engineering is moving back. I know of one company that has already discovered that cleaning up the mistakes generated by their "cheap" labor force was costing more than if they had paid somebody over here to do the work in the first place. To me, the bottom line is that you really do get what you pay for. My personal objective is to make sure I'm worth at least what I'm being paid.

Jim


----------



## chaosiscash

Road Guy said:


> you know this whole concept is more of a reason we need to go ahead with our new prof. engineering organization we talked about forming.



I agree 100%


----------



## chaosiscash

Tark62 said:


> I think this the first time I've ever seen someone make the opposite complaint, i.e. that state licensing laws are becoming too uniform and standardized.


I just want to make sure ya'll understand what I'm saying, and then I'll drop it. I'm not saying that stadardization isn't a good thing, just that engineers that actually work in the industry, and not a group of profs, should be the ones influencing policy related to the field. And since NCEES is pretty much a lost cause for engineers in the field, the only recourse we have is to lobby with the state boards, which are "supposed" to work for us (as members of the voting public).


----------



## Tark62

chaosiscash said:


> I just want to make sure ya'll understand what I'm saying, and then I'll drop it. I'm not saying that stadardization isn't a good thing, just that engineers that actually work in the industry, and not a group of profs, should be the ones influencing policy related to the field. And since NCEES is pretty much a lost cause for engineers in the field, the only recourse we have is to lobby with the state boards, which are "supposed" to work for us (as members of the voting public).


Your post implies that NCEES is an independent academic organization, with no connection to the state boards. You might want to take another look. 
In fact, NCEES is "a national non-profit organization composed of engineering and surveying licensing boards representing all states and U.S. territories." NCEES is administered by state board representatives. NCEES policies are determined by votes of state board representatives. The engineers in NCEES generally have many years of experience in industry and on state boards.

For example, the current NCEES president is a PE/SE who also serves on the Illlinois Structural Engineering Board, has more than 40 years of consulting experience, and led the investigation of the World Trade Center collapse. The NCEES president-elect, who takes office next year, is an Electrical PE who serves on the Florida Board for Professional Engineers, and who has 50 years of experience.

NCEES has no particular academic connections, and is not "a group of profs". Perhaps you are confusing NCEES with ABET, the organization that accredits college engineering degree programs.


----------



## chaosiscash

Tark62 said:


> Your post implies that NCEES is an independent academic organization, with no connection to the state boards. You might want to take another look.
> In fact, NCEES is "a national non-profit organization composed of engineering and surveying licensing boards representing all states and U.S. territories." NCEES is administered by state board representatives. NCEES policies are determined by votes of state board representatives. The engineers in NCEES generally have many years of experience in industry and on state boards.
> 
> For example, the current NCEES president is a PE/SE who also serves on the Illlinois Structural Engineering Board, has more than 40 years of consulting experience, and led the investigation of the World Trade Center collapse. The NCEES president-elect, who takes office next year, is an Electrical PE who serves on the Florida Board for Professional Engineers, and who has 50 years of experience.
> 
> NCEES has no particular academic connections, and is not "a group of profs". Perhaps you are confusing NCEES with ABET, the organization that accredits college engineering degree programs.


I'm not confusing them, I know (personally) quite a few professors that work or have worked with NCEES. After all, most Clemson professors have at some time or another, its real good extra money for them. And my statement that the individual boards have to approve any changes to state law or statue, regardless of whether NCEES approves or recommends it, it also correct. And your government works for you, but only if you are involved. But anyway, I'm out of the discussion, this defeatist attitude is driving me crazy, so I'm just going to let it go.


----------



## Road Guy

true, but you cant disocunt that a lot (I would guess at least half) of the engineers on state boards are there due to political contacts more so than as a testimonial to their engineering resume.

&amp; If you have ever spent any time close to politics then you know most everything exists to make someone some $$$$ &amp; I would almost certify that it "aint us"


----------



## chaosiscash

Road Guy said:


> &amp; If you have ever spent any time close to politics then you know most everything exists to make someone some $$$$ &amp; I would almost certify that it "aint us"


I agree, which is why I think engineers need a professional society / lobbying group (like an NSPE that hasn't lost its focus) to work for them with the state and fed governments.


----------



## Dleg

^^I agree 100%. So what are we going to do about it? No one is going to step in and do it for us.


----------



## NCST8ENGR

I don't agree with the BS+30 deal - one bit

I'd much rather have an engineer with experience in the field that has been groomed by peer PE's along their development path to seal/stamp that the design in question meets or exceeds design criteria - verses an engineer that had 30 more hours of differential equations and is more geared toward a "theoretical solution"...One of the smartest men I ever knew was a shop forman at a metal fab/machining place who said, "you can draw a paper asshole, but you can't make it sh**."

The only way to invoke change is to be the changer... and to do that we must get into the organizations and be the voice that needs to be heard.


----------



## Capt Worley PE

I have a Master's and I can honestly say that I learned nothing during that time that was pertinent to the real world. I even worked R&amp;D for a while and never used the stuff I learned in grad school.


----------



## udpolo15

NCST8ENGR said:


> I don't agree with the BS+30 deal - one bit
> I'd much rather have an engineer with experience in the field that has been groomed by peer PE's along their development path to seal/stamp that the design in question meets or exceeds design criteria - verses an engineer that had 30 more hours of differential equations and is more geared toward a "theoretical solution"...One of the smartest men I ever knew was a shop forman at a metal fab/machining place who said, "you can draw a paper asshole, but you can't make it sh**."
> 
> The only way to invoke change is to be the changer... and to do that we must get into the organizations and be the voice that needs to be heard.


Did I miss something? I thought the +30 was in addition to the experience requirements.


----------



## GSavant

benbo said:


> Not all lawyers and doctors are created equal. Plus lawyers and doctors are two different animals.
> There are so many lawyers now, that a lot of them cannot even make a living. My mom was a lawyer for 35 years and never made over 40,000. There are gov't lawyers working with me who make less than I do. And lot's of lawyers can't find work at all. Unless you graduate from a top school, or really hustle to make your bones, you are not going to get super rich as a lawyer.
> 
> As stated here, doctors make a lot of money because of the law of supply and demand. They strictly control entrance to med school and the gov't controls what medical professionals can do. THey could easily allow three times as many people into med school and still have competent docs. But with that said, even the medical regulations and pay is changing. I know a lot of doctors from various ways - two sick parents, my own illnesses, I went to school with a lot of them, and I have a lot of them as neighbors. THey make a good living but not all are super rich. It depends on their specialization. My own pcp makes about $150,000 a year. Granted, that is a pretty good salary, but not a fortune. More and more, regulations are being relaxed and now physicians assistants and nurse practictioners do a lot of the work formerly only performed by physicians. And as we move to more HMOs and maybe even some sort of gov't health care, salaries will have to go down.
> 
> The real problem with engineering salaries is that we allow foreign engineers in at too great a ratre and for too low a salary. Engineering is fairly self regulating - it is hard and not many people understand it. That's why fewer and fewer Americans are becoming engineers. I'm all for HB-1 visas as long as they can't find the engineers here, and are not an excuse for companies to pay slave wages just because they can get away with it. I don't think requiring a Master's degree is going to help anything. And if they had the kind of selectivity they have for med school for engineering school, I'm not really sure I would have made it. And I do a good job. I don't think that is necessary.


I don't agree, H1B's might be a problem in "engineering" fields such as computers , but all the foreign Civil Engineers I know make a butt load of money, more than what I make for sure.

I think it's a perceptions issue, people just don't think about engineers or how much more we need to be making based on our specializations, plus tack on the fact that most Civil engineering or other engineering work is funded either by the feds or the state and you'll notice that increasing our pay would require an increase in taxes.


----------



## benbo

I'm not sure which part of what I said you disagree with. If you disagree with the first three paragraphs well, I am just putting down my experience. If you are disagreeing with the last paragraph you may be right, especially for civil engineers, I don't know that much about civil engineers.

I'm not sure why you put engineering in quotation referring to computers. I know there are people here who don't believe in software engineers, I guess that is debatable. But I think most people agree there are computer engineers. Or at least electrical engineers, which represent a lot of the imported engineers. Or do you believe only licensed civil engineers can use the term "engineer."


----------



## Dleg

NCST8ENGR said:


> One of the smartest men I ever knew was a shop forman at a metal fab/machining place who said, "you can draw a paper asshole, but you can't make it sh**."


WOW. I like that one...


----------



## GSavant

benbo said:


> I'm not sure which part of what I said you disagree with. If you disagree with the first three paragraphs well, I am just putting down my experience. If you are disagreeing with the last paragraph you may be right, especially for civil engineers, I don't know that much about civil engineers.
> I'm not sure why you put engineering in quotation referring to computers. I know there are people here who don't believe in software engineers, I guess that is debatable. But I think most people agree there are computer engineers. Or at least electrical engineers, which represent a lot of the imported engineers. Or do you believe only licensed civil engineers can use the term "engineer."


I am sorry for not clarifying which part of your post I disagreed with, yep, it was the last paragraph.

You're right I do not consider anything other than the first three basic engineering offshoots (Mechanical, electrical and Civil) to be engineering, however if other "engineering" fields want to add engineers to their qualifications they must pass the FE and PE, and be accountable for their work, I mean what's up with the rider in software agreements " the producer of this software makes no claims about the reliability of the software", in Mech or Civil it'd be equivalent to "The builder of this "bridge/pump makes no guarantees to the stability and reliability of the bridge/pump". I hate Microsoft and other tech companies adding engineer to every tom, dick and harry who's passed the Microsoft certification test. That's b$#%.

But, I took this thread way off course, my apologies.


----------



## benbo

GSavant said:


> I am sorry for not clarifying which part of your post I disagreed with, yep, it was the last paragraph.
> You're right I do not consider anything other than the first three basic engineering offshoots (Mechanical, electrical and Civil) to be engineering, however if other "engineering" fields want to add engineers to their qualifications they must pass the FE and PE, and be accountable for their work, I mean what's up with the rider in software agreements " the producer of this software makes no claims about the reliability of the software", in Mech or Civil it'd be equivalent to "The builder of this "bridge/pump makes no guarantees to the stability and reliability of the bridge/pump". I hate Microsoft and other tech companies adding engineer to every tom, dick and harry who's passed the Microsoft certification test. That's b$#%.
> 
> But, I took this thread way off course, my apologies.


So I guess you wouldn't consider the electrical and mechanical engineers who design our defense systems and put a man on the moon engineers because most of them haven't passed (or even really heard of) the FE. And that would certainly mean that there are no chemical or environmental engineers. And of course, anyone who hasn't passed the PE yet should not call themselves an engineer under any circumstances.

Well, I've debated this point ad naseum. I completely disagree, but everyone is entitled to their opinion.


----------



## roadmonkey

I am really mixed on this...

I use about 1% of anything I learned in college to perform my job. On the job training is essential to the "real life" tasks of desiging a project, and I thought that is why you need X number of years experience to apply for the PE exam. I can count the number of engineers with a masters that I know on one hand.

But, I would love to have the opportunity to further my education, as long as it something that will be useful. I also believe it may make a better more knowledgable engineer, given the correct curriculum.


----------



## GSavant

benbo said:


> So I guess you wouldn't consider the electrical and mechanical engineers who design our defense systems and put a man on the moon engineers because most of them haven't passed (or even really heard of) the FE. And that would certainly mean that there are no chemical or environmental engineers. And of course, anyone who hasn't passed the PE yet should not call themselves an engineer under any circumstances. Well, I've debated this point ad naseum. I completely disagree, but everyone is entitled to their opinion.



Anyone who hasn't passed the PE is not an Engineer and the FE only makes you an Engineer Intern, in all probability the state board laws list that as one of the restrictions, the one in MS sure a heck does. As for the Defense systems and Moon engineers not knowing what the FE is or having passed the PE, I'll believe that when you supply some concrete proof behind that statement. BTW, anyone can design systems, it's the robustness and validity of the design that is checked and stamped by the PE. I design systems and I am not a PE (yet), but my boss is and he signs off on the designs ( after a thorough screening).


----------



## benbo

GSavant said:


> Anyone who hasn't passed the PE is not an Engineer and the FE only makes you an Engineer Intern, in all probability the state board laws list that as one of the restrictions, the one in MS sure a heck does. As for the Defense systems and Moon engineers not knowing what the FE is or having passed the PE, I'll believe that when you supply some concrete proof behind that statement. BTW, anyone can design systems, it's the robustness and validity of the design that is checked and stamped by the PE. I design systems and I am not a PE (yet), but my boss is and he signs off on the designs ( after a thorough screening).


My co worker was an engineer at NASA for 10 years. He has no PE.

I worked in the defense industry for 15 years. Nobody I knew had a PE. Look at adds for Boeing, NASA, Lockheed, none of them require or mention PEs. I only checked the first 10 openings, but none of them ask for PEs or even mention licensing. I don't know what I can show you to prove something to you that you just don't want to believe.

Here are a couple samples from Lockheed

Req ID 49162BR

Industry Job Title *Electrical Engineer Sr *

Standard Job Code/Title E1443:Electrical Engineer Sr

Required skills Demonstrated understanding of COTS component integration with specific knowledge in networking and serial connectivity. Applicant shall also have a solid understanding of reference designators and their application.

Desired skills UGS Ideas, EPDM, experience designing Network Architectures. Domain experience with digitized SIGINT processing systems.

Specific Job Description Provide electrical engineering support for customer programs. This includes requirements analysis, design and development utilizing a CAD tool to create system Interconnect Drawings and an Enterprise Product Data Management tool to create and manage associated parts lists, fabrication assistance/support, creation of production/integration operations orders, perform/provide support for system integration and testing activities both in-plant and at customer sites.

Applicants selected will be subject to a government security investigation and must meet eligibility requirements for access to classified information.

Standard Job Description Researches, develops, designs, and tests electrical components, equipment, systems, and networks. Designs electrical equipment, facilities, components, products, and systems for commercial, industrial, and domestic purposes.

Security Clearance Top Secret/Special Security Requirements

*Typical Minimums Bachelors degree from an accredited college in a related discipline, or equivalent experience/combined education, with 5 years of professional experience; or 3 years of professional experience with a related Masters degree. Considered career, or journey, level. *

Standard Job Code/Title E1442:*Electrical Engineer *

Required skills An understanding of mechanical and electromechanical systems, instruments and controls is required along with National Instruments LabVIEW and TestStand Applications, instrument automation, General Purpose Interface Bus (GPIB), and PCI eXtensions for Instrumentation (PXI) proficiency. DIAdem, CVI, C/C++, and either MySQL or Access, and laboratory equipment experience is desired. Good troubleshooting skills are a must.

Desired skills Knowledge of PRO-E and Design Intralink CAD Software, software and hardware integration are desired skills. Good communications skills, Flexible and adaptable, Works well in teams.

Specific Job Description The candidate will support development of the Exploration Electrical Power Systems Test (EEST) Facility. Design and layout of laboratory systems controls, instrumentation, test equipment, and interfaces to engineering and flight hardware. Test and integrate the laboratory testbed with interfaces to engineering and flight hardware, and spacecraft modules.

*Typical Minimums Bachelors degree from an accredited college in a related discipline, or equivalent experience/combined education, with 2 years of professional experience; or no experience required with a related Masters degree. Considered experienced, but still a learner. *


----------



## IlPadrino

benbo said:


> My co worker was an engineer at NASA for 10 years. He has no PE. I worked in the defense industry for 15 years. Nobody I knew had a PE. Look at adds for Boeing, NASA, Lockheed, none of them require or mention PEs. I only checked the first 10 openings, but none of them ask for PEs or even mention licensing. I don't know what I can show you to prove something to you that you just don't want to believe.
> 
> Here are a couple samples from Lockheed


I don't think the Federal government is bound by the State laws, so the Defense industry and NASA would be clear exceptions. I believe you... there are people using the Engineer title all over the Defense industry without being registered as a PE.

Perhaps the better question to ask is this: Is this practice good for the Engineering profession?

And, of course, if you work in a State that doesn't explicitly provide you an exemption nor do you work for the Federal government, you shouldn't "by the law" use the title Engineer without registration if it is prohibited.


----------



## Capt Worley PE

Did they even have PEs when the moon program was going? I didn't think PE registration started until sometime in the early 70s.


----------



## ClemsonEngr

You know some of you touched on a big problem. Why are more Engineering College Professors not Licensed? Why are the department chairs not licensed? In my humble opinion this should be MANDITORY! I heard at the last FES (Florida Engineering Society) that you could count all of the Licensed professors in the major Florida Engineering schools on one hand.


----------



## IlPadrino

ClemsonEngr said:


> You know some of you touched on a big problem. Why are more Engineering College Professors not Licensed? Why are the department chairs not licensed? In my humble opinion this should be MANDITORY! I heard at the last FES (Florida Engineering Society) that you could count all of the Licensed professors in the major Florida Engineering schools on one hand.


Why? Because there is no incentive. Certainly not for the professorship and probably not even for the University.


----------



## Slugger926

IlPadrino said:


> Why? Because there is no incentive. Certainly not for the professorship and probably not even for the University.


There is a legal incentive. The univeristies and the professors themselves can't advertise themselves as engineers legally without a PE. Turn them into the boards, and have the boards force them into the exam and/or fine them along with orders to surrender their position/advertising until they comply. Give them a grace period to take the exam.

:deadhorse: :brickwall:


----------



## IlPadrino

Slugger926 said:


> There is a legal incentive. The univeristies and the professors themselves can't advertise themselves as engineers legally without a PE. Turn them into the boards, and have the boards force them into the exam and/or fine them along with orders to surrender their position/advertising until they comply. Give them a grace period to take the exam.
> :deadhorse: :brickwall:


What titles are they using? Can you give some actual examples? I never noticed professors using "Engineer" titles but admittedly I wasn't paying much attention.

I like the idea of reporting them to the boards - should be easy enough in some states. And if they're members of the NSPE there's that route as well.


----------



## Guest

IlPadrino said:


> What titles are they using? Can you give some actual examples? I never noticed professors using "Engineer" titles but admittedly I wasn't paying much attention.


I just took a look at some letters received from professors without professional registration that is signed XXX, PhD. I don't see any title included in the signature block.

I have only received solicited opinions from professors regarding engineering designs. I have never been engaged in a situation where the professor was 'responsible' for the engineering design.

That my :2cents: - other comments welcomed.

JR


----------



## Slugger926

How can you teach engineering without being an engineer? They can't legally be an engineer without maintaining a P.E.

It would be easy for the boards to proactivily enforce by just picking up class schedules, and comparing the teachers for "engineering classes" to the state roster.

arty-smiley-048:

Licensing of engineering teachers should be an ABET requirement.


----------



## Guest

Slugger926 said:


> Licensing of engineering teachers should be an ABET requirement.


I think ABET has been pushing for professional registration amongst the faculty at ABET-accredited colleges. I know many of the professors I have taken classes with in my graduate program have been scrambling to take the exam. A few have even passed the exam recently :true:

JR


----------



## IlPadrino

Slugger926 said:


> How can you teach engineering without being an engineer? They can't legally be an engineer without maintaining a P.E.
> It would be easy for the boards to proactivily enforce by just picking up class schedules, and comparing the teachers for "engineering classes" to the state roster.
> 
> arty-smiley-048:
> 
> Licensing of engineering teachers should be an ABET requirement.



OK... I can't tell where the tongue meets the cheek lately... Who says you can't teach engineering without being an engineer? Do you need to be a lawyer to teach others about the law?

Maybe things would be simpler if we distinguish between an Engineer and an engineer.

I'd bet large amounts of beer (I'm talking kegs!) that there no State laws that prohibit teaching engineer knowledge without being registered by the State Board as a Professional Engineer. State boards can't just make up laws, don't you know...


----------



## ClemsonEngr

jregieng said:


> I think ABET has been pushing for professional registration amongst the faculty at ABET-accredited colleges. I know many of the professors I have taken classes with in my graduate program have been scrambling to take the exam. A few have even passed the exam recently :true:
> JR


That's refreshing. Good for them. Maybe more will get motivated. What school did you attend for graduate school? Did they do it because they had to, or because they felt they should?


----------



## Undertaker

Guys you are beating a dead horse :deadhorse: and guess what. Its not going anywhere


----------



## Guest

ClemsonEngr said:


> What school did you attend for graduate school? Did they do it because they had to, or because they felt they should?


I am actually *STILL* a graduate student at Florida State University. I will be graduating in December :thankyou:

The professors that I know that have passed the exam since I have been there began seeking licensure for both reasons. ABET has been pushing hard to increase the number of licensed faculty members at universities as far as ABET accreditation/review of accreditation is concerned. These professors were also seeking to include consulting activities as part of thier CV and were unable to without a license, so I think the overlapping needs probably served as the driver to start pursuing professional licensure.

JR


----------



## mudpuppy

I'm with Sapper on this. I can see it more in the Civil discipline, but cars, computers and space shuttles aren't designed by PE's, so why should the person teaching you how to design cars, computers and space shuttles have to be licensed?

Something to keep in mind: even though a state might not have a specific exemption for industry, a de facto one exists. I'm not a lawyer, but the way I understand it is interstate commerce is regulated (under the Constitution) by the federal government. So a state cannot regulate a product you make in that state if you sell it in other states. A state may regulate what is sold within it's borders, but not what is sold in other states. So, for instance, Michigan could say "Any car sold in Michigan has to be designed by a PE", but not "Any car designed or built in Michigan has to be designed by a PE"--only the federal government has the power to do that, and they haven't. Before I get flak for this, I'm not saying I agree with it, it's just the way it is.

And, BTW, I took the EE PhD. qualifier exam at Michigan Tech and it was a helluva lot harded than the PE exam. OTOH, the qual is not a standardized test.


----------



## Dark Knight

The PE license is just for liability purposes.It is like a bet. When you stamp a design your bet is that it complies the state requisites and the commomwealth of the people who benefits or will make use of your project, name it a bridge, a road, an electric system, or just fill the blanks, will not be compromised.

Professors at college are not offering their jobs to the public. They are preparing professionals with their teaching. After that is up to us to apply the concepts they taught us. Based on that I do not see why the college professors have to be licensed. If that becomes a requisite I can see blood sucker leaches(aka lawyers) going all the way back to the colleges looking for money everytime something goes wrong becausue the professors did not do a good job preparing the engineer that messed up.

That is a little too much. The line has to be drawn somewhere.


----------



## Guest

This is the thread that never ends,

It goes on and on my friend .... 







:joke: .... I couldn't resist 

JR


----------



## ClemsonEngr

I get the point that if a professor does not provide Engineering Services, he does not need to be Licensed, and I also agree that some Engineering fields do not necessarily require Licensure to practice, but....

Never mind I will drop it


----------



## mudpuppy

mudpuppy said:


> And, BTW, I took the EE PhD. qualifier exam at Michigan Tech and it was a helluva lot harded than the PE exam. OTOH, the qual is not a standardized test.


I'm not trying to further this topic, I just want to clarify for posterity what I was trying to say with this statement: Given the difficulty of the PhD qual, I don't begrude a professor for not having a license. But that's probably why some states allow PhDs to bypass the FE. (And, BTW I miserably failed on the qualifier).


----------



## Slugger926

ClemsonEngr said:


> I get the point that if a professor does not provide Engineering Services, he does not need to be Licensed, and I also agree that some Engineering fields do not necessarily require Licensure to practice, but....
> Never mind I will drop it


Isn't teaching Engineering an Engineering Service?

:deadhorse:


----------



## IlPadrino

Slugger926 said:


> Isn't teaching Engineering an Engineering Service?


No, it is not.

I told my son the other day that he needs to eat my fiber to keep him regular. I then explained how the digestive track needed it to keep things moving; it was a mini medical lesson.  But I was NOT practicing medicine.

In Oregon, the following law applies:




Code:


672.005 Additional definitions.
As used in ORS 672.002 to 672.325, unless the context requires otherwise:
(1) “Practice of engineering” or “practice of professional engineering” means doing any of the following: 
   (a) Performing any professional service or creative work requiring engineering education, training and
experience.
   (b) Applying special knowledge of the mathematical, physical and engineering sciences to such professional
services or creative work as consultation, investigation, testimony, evaluation, planning, design and services
during construction, manufacture or fabrication for the purpose of ensuring compliance with specifications
and design, in connection with any public or private utilities, structures, buildings, machines, equipment,
processes, works or projects.
   (c) Surveying to determine area or topography.
   (d) Surveying to establish lines, grades or elevations, or to determine or estimate quantities of materials
required, removed or in place.
   (e) Surveying required for design and construction layout of engineering and architectural infrastructure.
   (f) Performing photogrammetric mapping.


Teaching would be fine.


----------



## jartgo

I think you all are comparing apples to oranges. I don't think having a PE makes you an "engineer" either. That probably doesn't make sense to most of you, but how difficult to do you really think it would be for an engineering professor to show experience and pass the PE exam? Once he or she did, what benefit would that be to them? If you don't need to be a PE in order to do your job, why go to the trouble? Some of the posts above sound like, "you're nothing until you get your PE, once you get the PE designation, well boy you're something!" Having a PE license is something to be proud of and most of us work hard for it, but it doesn't automatically make us better than all those without it. Just my 2 cents.


----------



## Dleg

Yeah, I can't stand that attitude either.


----------



## C-Dog

Dleg said:


> I know we have brought this up before - the new rule that will go into effect in 2015 requiring engineers to have 30 credit hours in addition to a Bachelor of Science degree to become licensed - essentially a Masters degree - but I thought I would link to the latest NCEES Licensure Exchange newsletter, where there is an interesting editorial by NCEES Treasurer Larry Smith, P.E. (scroll down to page 12 of 17 of the pdf file).
> Once again, I do not disagree with the principle, but I think it is a shame that this is not being addressed by a more appropriate organization such as ABET, rather than the engineering licensing boards.
> 
> The article has kind of a "I had to walk 5 miles, barefoot, in the snow" kind of thing going on, and rubs me a bit wrong. I would think that anyone who is presently an engineer, and under the age of say 40, might also get the feeling that we are being diminshed as a lesser class of engineers than our seniors. Maybe we are, I don't know, but damn!
> 
> ld-025:


Back to the main topic. I agree with this. I also think that there needs to be something put in place for life long learning, like attend 1 conference / class every three years. Because having a PE today means you knew the material on the day of the test, not neccissarily know it today...

:deadhorse:


----------



## EngRanger

Dleg said:


> The article has kind of a "I had to walk 5 miles, barefoot, in the snow" kind of thing going on, and rubs me a bit wrong. ld-025:


I agree 100%

My kid bought me this t-shirt for Christmas - I think it applies.

http://shirt.woot.com/Friends.aspx?k=4362


----------



## Road Guy

_The Council also passed a UPLG motion adding language to the Model Rules stating that, effective January 1, 2015, a graduate with a bachelor of science degree in engineering requiring more than 120 credits may request that credits earned in excess of 120 credits be applied to satisfy the requirement. _

I was peeved at this at first, but I think most of you, if you look at your transcrpts will see that you have more than 120, and enough to cover the 30 without needing any extra classes.

I want to point out that I think requiring a MS (which is where we are headed) is a bad idea. I know some great people with masters degrees, and many also who have a MS, PE, and couldnt make a decision if there life depended on it (but boy they look good on paper).


----------



## Katiebug

jartgo said:


> I think you all are comparing apples to oranges. I don't think having a PE makes you an "engineer" either. That probably doesn't make sense to most of you, but how difficult to do you really think it would be for an engineering professor to show experience and pass the PE exam? Once he or she did, what benefit would that be to them? If you don't need to be a PE in order to do your job, why go to the trouble? Some of the posts above sound like, "you're nothing until you get your PE, once you get the PE designation, well boy you're something!" Having a PE license is something to be proud of and most of us work hard for it, but it doesn't automatically make us better than all those without it. Just my 2 cents.


I know for the Civils, the PE is everything - but for engineers who can easily work an entire career under industrial exemption, most of us can attest to working with fine engineers who have masters degrees, doctorates, and decades of experience who would laugh at the idea of a newly-minted PE four-odd years out of school trying to tell them they're not real engineers because they didn't pursue licensure. Don't get me wrong, a PE is a great accomplishment and one that really I hope to attain at some point. However, having those magic letters on my business card won't magically make me an "engineer". It won't make me a better engineer than the overwhelming number of my colleagues who'll never bother with the process. I'm going to try to get a PE as a personal/professional challenge - no more.

I like the way the Canadians do things. Graduate from an accredited engineering program, take an ethics test, and do the equivalent of an EIT phase, and you get your P.Eng. You can't call yourself an engineer or do engineering work without having it. A benefit is that every practicing engineer is licensed, so getting recommendations when applying for a P.Eng is just not an issue like it often is for mechanicals/electricals/etc. in the US who are looking to get a PE. You don't have "sanitation engineers" and MCSEs "diluting" the profession. They control quality via stringent educational standards rather than testing, and most provinces require some degree of continuing ed to maintain a license. It's a different system, and I think it has pros (and a few cons) compared to the way the US does things.

If the engineering societies got their collective behinds in gear, we could move towards something similar. For engineers working under industrial exemption, the lack of PEs at work can pose a big barrier to seeking a license. Heck, I still don't know if I'll be able to pull it off. In a system where every practicing engineer is licensed, that issue goes away. The other side of the coin - if there's concern over an accredited degree not being sufficient preparation for engineering practice, then ABET needs to fix things in a hurry.



Road Guy said:


> I was peeved at this at first, but I think most of you, if you look at your transcrpts will see that you have more than 120, and enough to cover the 30 without needing any extra classes.


My BSME required 134 credits. I think I graduated with 135 or 136. Not quite enough to make the extra 30, but a few grad classes or a graduate certificate would have handled the rest.

I don't like the idea of requiring a masters degree. Again, I know plenty of really great engineers who didn't go to grad school - and I know some who have a masters and are marginal at best. Some form of continuing ed is a great requirement and I think all states should require something.


----------



## C-Dog

While I agree with the +30, I disagree with their saying the education has been watered down. Isn't the FE exam should cover this. They could just revise that exam, instead of adding this 30+ credit thing


----------



## Johnny

C-Dog said:


> While I agree with the +30, I disagree with their saying the education has been watered down. Isn't the FE exam should cover this. They could just revise that exam, instead of adding this 30+ credit thing


I only agree with the 30+ plus rule if they don't fix the undergraduate requirements. The FE is a pretty good litmus test, but I would also like the kids to get exposure to different classes while in school and not just study an FE preparation book a few weeks before the exam. I am a little 'old school' that way (I had to do it...so they should have to do it) I guess.

I wanted to touch on a separate topic also in this thread. I am one of those 'industrial exemption' guys who has never had the chance to work for a PE, and has only ever worked with a relative few PE's in industry. They are rare to find these days. The way I see it is, there just isn't much incentive anymore for my types to get licensed. We aren't going to get much of a raise (if any) and the company may or may not pay for the required professional development hours needed afterwards. The CEU's can get expensive. So, what's the real benefit if we stay in the same profession, within the same company?

Don't get me wrong, I believe in licensure (That's why I'm pursing it) but how do you get others to follow suit? Where's the tangilble argument?

Anyway, MTC.

Johnny


----------



## Dleg

^^Good points, and argued over endlessly. In my opinion, there's a disturbing habit of many PEs in the civil profession to not only look down their noses at non-licensed, yet highly skilled engineers in industry, but also to attempt to cut out the competition by making the application process so tough that an engineer from an exempt industry can hardly even meet the application requirements to sit for the exam. I'm talking about mostly the required experience working for other licensed PEs, and getting licensed PEs as references. Honestly, I have no idea how "they" ever expect to recruit more engineers from the exempt industries unless they can better control the state boards and the civil engineering good old boy network that seems to dominate the licensing world.

That's my 2 cents, anyway.


----------



## Katiebug

Dleg said:


> ^^Good points, and argued over endlessly. In my opinion, there's a disturbing habit of many PEs in the civil profession to not only look down their noses at non-licensed, yet highly skilled engineers in industry, but also to attempt to cut out the competition by making the application process so tough that an engineer from an exempt industry can hardly even meet the application requirements to sit for the exam. I'm talking about mostly the required experience working for other licensed PEs, and getting licensed PEs as references. Honestly, I have no idea how "they" ever expect to recruit more engineers from the exempt industries unless they can better control the state boards and the civil engineering good old boy network that seems to dominate the licensing world.


I'm going to (hopefully) get my EIT with absolutely no guarantee that I'll be able to take the PE. I'm hopeful that if I keep plodding, I'll find a way to make it work.

In my fairly small engineering organization, virtually all EEs and MEs, there are two guys with a Canadian P.Eng, one UK Chartered Engineer, and one guy (in my group, actually) with a lapsed/inactive PE in my state. That's it. If I can't provide my three US PE references, I have to write a letter to the state licensing board explaining why, and they may or may not allow me to take the PE exam. In this, I feel fortunate since I know in other states the lack of PEs at work would be a total showstopper; at least I have a decent chance here! Of my five likely references, all have at least a master's degree, and two have PhDs - combined they have more than 100 years of industry experience. Yet they're not good enough to attest to the quality of my work, unless I can convince the licensing board of it. I find that ludicrous.

If the requirement is PE references and/or working directly for PEs, that excludes an awful lot of talented people for _no_ good reason. That's the opposite of promoting universal licensing! The mysterious "they" need to find ways for experienced, talented engineers in exempt industries to get licensed without running up against that brick wall. Of course everyone should take the tests and prove valid experience, but the PE reference requirement is unreasonable for many/most engineers other than Civils. In the days where engineers were trained via apprenticeship, the PE references and work history made a lot of sense - but today, IMO, an applicant with an ABET-accredited degree and solid work experience shouldn't have to jump through that particular hoop.

Reality for me is that if I get my PE, I'll probably never stamp anything, my employer won't care very much, and the only real difference is that I'll have it on my business cards. The _only_ motivation I have for doing this is personal/professional challenge, and to maybe make it a little easier for the next person at work who wants to get licensed. If my colleagues see that it CAN be done, perhaps a few of them will decide to give it a try. I think engineering licensing is important on general principle; like I said before, I like the Canadian model. I also don't think it's realistic to switch to such a model here. However, changes could be made to the current licensing system to make it more attractive and straightforward for engineers in exempt industries to get a PE.


----------



## C-Dog

Great points made here by everyone.

One more question, how does this whole +30 thing going to apply to schools with trimesters or quarters? I went to a school that was on a 10 week tri-mester system, we racked up credits, but our total class time was the same as the typical 15 week semester school. I had over 250 credits at graduation (I think... I really can't remember)


----------



## Capt Worley PE

Interesting article on this and other engineering issues.

http://www.fpemag.com/articles/article.asp?i=332


----------



## C-Dog

Captain Worley PE said:


> Interesting article on this and other engineering issues.
> http://www.fpemag.com/articles/article.asp?i=332


That was a good write up. So they are worried that the BS degree is becoming to general.


----------



## Katiebug

C-Dog said:


> That was a good write up. So they are worried that the BS degree is becoming to general.


I'd agree.

My BSME required 134 credits, and I graduated in 2003. My university's general requirement was 120 credits to get a BA or BS. Engineering was the only school that required significantly more. I can't remember how many gen eds that entailed, but I recall having at least 2 semesters where I took only engineering (or related math/science) courses. I tended to throw one gen ed in per semester if I could, just to liven things up a little. Most gen eds were a joke to get good grades in, anyways. I thought it was silly to make me take a basic history course followed by a history elective AND a history course from a non-Western perspective - the engineering majors killed two birds with one stone on that one with the "History of the Modern Middle East" class and a few others like it. Likewise, "German Film" fulfilled both a fine arts requirement and a foreign language/culture requirement in one class (we got into the spirit and snuck German beer into the lecture hall for that one!). Our advisors knew those little loopholes and managed to work things so as minimize the actual number of courses taken outside of engineering.

I think that there are certain courses that everyone with a BSME should have taken as an undergrad. I've been surprised to hear from our summer interns over the last few years that some courses that as recently as 5-6 years ago were required are now in-major electives, or that 2-course sequences have been condensed into one. Yeah, the Mickey Mouse baloney gen eds have a purpose, but maybe engineering degrees should be expanded to a 5-year program rather than a 4-year to ensure that appropriate major coursework is done right.

We're still the only profession where a bachelor's degree will suffice for entry - medicine and law both require professional graduate degrees. It certainly provides good food for thought.


----------



## Guest

Katiebug said:


> My BSME required 134 credits, and I graduated in 2003. My university's general requirement was 120 credits to get a BA or BS.


I think there are many undergraduate engineering programs that require more than the 120 credit hours for the university general requirements. My BS required 154 credit hours when I graduated in 1996. ldtimer:

[Hijack - sort of]

These days, in Florida, EVERY undergraduate program is required to limit the curriculum to 120 credit hours. The state legislature passed some education reforms that included that provision in order to 'speed' students along in thier education.

Today, there is a MAJOR fight between the legislature and higher-education board of governors because the legislature is trying to moderate tuition increases and funding. In fact, they are pushing the state-run universities to CUT staff in a system that was already overwhelmed.

The response, at least from Florida State University (my current grad school) has been to freeze undergrad enrollment, eliminate 204 positions (40 of which were vacant), and raise FEES which is tantamount to raising tuition anyways (Note: fees are covered expenses for tax purposes). Moreover, once admissions are opened again they are going to PREFERENTIALLY admit out-of-state students since the tuition rate for those students is much higher than in-state. Oh, and one last thing while I am on my soap box - Florida has a state-assisted scholarship to award academic excellence. The plan now is to reward that scholarship based on your major rather than your academic achievment. So much for serving your INTENDED purposes - affordable education to the people of YOUR state. ldman:

IMHO, we can wax eloquently about how adding 30-credit hours to the base B.S. degree will bring up the standard of excellence in our profession. Truth of the matter is that education, in general, is broken in this country. A top-down approach to fix it is the only way to get to the root of the matter. To me, adding 30-credit hours to a curriculum is quite meaningless and in some cases may not be REASONABLY achievable if other states are facing higher educational crunches and shortfalls similar to Florida universities.

[/hijack]

JR


----------



## C-Dog

I've been thinking about this topic a lot lately. Here is my latest thought that I had on my snowy drive up the interstate this morning, which by the way was invented by HITLER :true:

I agree with waiving the FE exam if you have a Phd. If you got into a Phd. program and graduated, you have probably got a good grasp of the fundamentals. Requiring profs to have PEs may be too much, since most of them will not pass. They are closer to being scientist than engineers.

As far as the credit thing, I think a good engineer has to be a well rounded individual and should be required to take arts and history classes. Engineering is, after all, the application of sciene, math, and technology in order to better society. How can we, as a profession, better society if we do not understand society?


----------



## kevo_55

^^ I don't think there is a good answer for your last point C-Dogg.

I totally agree to atleast attempt to make the engineer a well-rounded person with the arts. Maybe this BS+30 thing is the way to go.

This isn't a really problem for us, but it will suck for the people starting college now.


----------



## Guest

C-Dog said:


> I've been thinking about this topic a lot lately.


It is funny how this forum will do that to you eh? 



C-Dog said:


> I agree with waiving the FE exam if you have a Phd. If you got into a Phd. program and graduated, you have probably got a good grasp of the fundamentals.


Maybe yes - maybe no.

I dropped out of my PhD program for a few reasons. One of those reasons was that I saw other candidates getting through who could do 'reasearch' very, very well; however, if you gave them an exam to critically solve a problem they were hopelessly lost. If the problem was not laid out as A --&gt; B --&gt; C and Eureka, then it wasn't getting solved.

I think it is tough to grant carte blanche waivers because not all PhD's are created the same, hence the standardized examination.

My statement is not intended in any way as a slam on those who seek PhD status. It is really intended to broaden the thought about what the FE/PE examination should test and what purpose does it serve.

:2cents:

JR


----------



## C-Dog

jregieng said:


> I think it is tough to grant carte blanche waivers because not all PhD's are created the same, hence the standardized examination


Good point.


----------



## Road Guy

one more thing to add, I dont think the "up hill both ways engineers" had to take all the Bull sh*t classes like art appreciation, history, political science and other "requirements" that the fools in the education business think people need to be well rounded, Off course I dont ever plan on spending one more day in a college classroom, but I would gladly trade taking some other engineering class over most of the bullshit most people "have" to take their freshman / sophmore years.

Say you want to design bridges, why do you really need to learn who was the King of France in 1632?


----------



## C-Dog

Road Guy said:


> Say you want to design bridges, why do you really need to learn who was the King of France in 1632?


YES, Because we use history to learn from our mistakes. Plus, if you look at the bridge design, just as the small finite picture of the bridge and just the bridge, you may not be bettering society, but hurting it.

By understanding society (which history helps in this), we can understand how our desing may impact it. An example of this is the highway designs of the 1950s. They destroyed many east coast cities and neighborhoods because the ENGINEERS designed them to slice right through the cities. Many of the cities have still not recovered from those errors which resulted in narrow focused engineering and not understanding society.


----------



## Guest

^^^ I agree that engineers (as well as ALL other college majors) should have a well rounded education. Appreciation for history, cultures, diversity, and society helps drive who we are and what we can achieve.

However, would you agree that the well-rounded aspect would be better served by offering up the education from high school as equivalent to (more or less) that of freshmen/sophmore college classes. If not, would you be opposed to structuring the secondary education (high school) to essentially meet those requirements so that an incoming freshman could begin with engineering curriculum from the onset rather than wade through two years of material they have already been introduced to in previous coursework?

My thought is that english, history, humanities, and social sciences were wasted time for me in the college years because I had already covered those subjects THOROUGHLY in my honors and AP courses in high school with much greater rigor. If our country truly wants to move forward with respect to education, they should make high school education represent an achievement rather than just an exercise in trying to prevent truancy and counting beans based on hollow standards and rote examinations.

:2cents:

JR


----------



## RIP - VTEnviro

> My thought is that english, history, humanities, and social sciences were wasted time for me in the college years because I had already covered those subjects THOROUGHLY in my honors and AP courses in high school with much greater rigor.


I really enjoyed some of the humanities classes I took in college. But I knew no one was going to give a hoot if I learned everything there is to know about the religions of India if I bombed thermo. So I put minimal effort into those classes and focused on my major coursework instead.

I agree with Road Guy in some ways. The soft skills I learned on the job have made me more well rounded than being able to carry on a conversation at a party about 17th Century British lit.


----------



## benbo

I always liked GE because they brought up my GPA. On the other hand, I don't use any of it in my day to day job. But to be even more frank, there is a lot of technical classwork that I don't use in my day to day job either. Probably most of it. If I was using it on a daily basis I wouldn't have had to study like a fiend to pass the PE.

I could see tailoring the GE to fit the major - for example, classes in technical writing, writing for government work (which is what I mainly do), Technology and the Law, economics for engineers, basic business management course for technical workers, etc. When my dad went to school he was forced to take "Russian for Scientists and Engineers." Maybe have this as an option.

And I think classes like some of my design classes where you have to work in a team are criticla for some people, who just can't get along with others.

But "The History of Elizabethan Dance". Forget about it.


----------



## RIP - VTEnviro

> I could see tailoring the GE to fit the major - for example, classes in technical writing, writing for government work (which is what I mainly do), Technology and the Law, economics for engineers, basic business management course for technical workers, etc.


I love it! Stuff like proposal writing or technical presentations to a lay audience would have been so much better than Music Appreciation.



> When my dad went to school he was forced to take "Russian for Scientists and Engineers." Maybe have this as an option.


My Mom was a math major in the 60s and told me about that. German and Russian were technical languages you might need to know a bit of. Which is totally different now, as if you can't write something in decent English it won't get published.


----------



## benbo

Oh, I forgot one of my most valuable GE classes - Public Speaking. I hated it with a passion, but should have taken more. Maybe even some communication course that included interviewing.

Nothing I ever took in school was as valuable as all the speaking in front of groups that I did when getting my Master's. Unless this is natural for you. I was terrified of it, and now I'm comfortable.


----------



## Capt Worley PE

Two of the best GE classes I took were Technical Writing and Business Writing.

One of the most bizarre was psychology of marriage.


----------



## C-Dog

Who needs presidential debates when you have this great debate occuring

If we define engineers as Dynamic or Transactional, where Dynamic Engineers are are capable of abstract thinking and high-level problem solving using scientific knowledge. These engineers *thrive in teams, work well across international borders, have strong interpersonal skills, and are capable of translating technical engineering jargon into common diction.* Dynamic engineers lead innovation. Transactional Engineers may possess engineering fundamentals, but not the experience or expertise to apply this knowledge to larger problems. These individuals are typically responsible for rote and repetitive tasks in the workforce. One would need to be well rounded and have a great understanding of the world to be a Dynamic Engineer.

In previous positions, I have traveled the world, from Asia, Europe, and Africa, working with customers, suppliers, and partners. Typically the teams worked welll together, but when we had a person who was your stereotypical engineer nerd (this was always someone from the US), the team did not thrive because the team building typically always occured during social situations (drinking and dinner). While these stereotype engineer were great at crunching numbers and design, they could not work outside of that relm and when it came time to relate with a Japanese or German engineer, they could not and the team suffered for that.

This is why we need to be aware of other cultures, history, music, art.

Ok, I am now getting off my soapbox (need an emoticon for that)


----------



## Dleg

I highly value the "other" parts of my education, and I continue to pursue topics I am interested in. I think that makes me a better rounded person, as well as an engineer.

But I don't think it is absolutely required for pure, technical engineering. I think the system, at least as I experienced in the 1980s, strikes a good balance between technical coursework and general education.


----------



## EM_PS

I like your soap box, C-Dog - sounds to me you could have a career in the teaching world someday. . .

One of my favorite text authors was the late Curtis M. Brown. He was a CE who wrote / co-wrote a number of surveying texts. In one of his texts, he wrote of professional stature (of which lies outside of our famous 2-digit acronyms). He wrote: "Professional eminence is earned because of superior ability to apply knowledge for the benefit of others - To be successful as a professional requires more than a formal, technical education. Technical education has to do with things. Professionals deal with people - All of the technical knowledge in the world is of little aid unless a person can also convey this knowledge to others."

This is your dynamic engineer, spoke of some 40+ years back.

My 1st degree was in geology, received from a liberal-arts college. Taking music 101 got me listening to classical music. I still find myself practicing applications learned from my philosophy 101 class, and the various communications courses as well. Now, in obtaining my soon-to-be engineering degree, i am elated at not having to bother with any of the gen ed classes. . . .but also understand how very necessary they are for truly having that trained, broad-minded ability to view and troubleshoot problems, projects, &amp; yes, people.

I don't know where i stand on the whole B+30 issue. . . until every state in the union even requires a BS degree, I guess i don't see the logic behind requiring an additional 30 credit hours. There's just so much doom-n-gloom speak out there in the STEM professions; attrition rates, foreign competition, low enrollment rates; I don't see (anymore) much incentive to pursue anything in the STEM sector - adding requirements to decreasing enrollees seems asinine &amp; counterproductive.


----------



## snickerd3

benbo said:


> Oh, I forgot one of my most valuable GE classes - Public Speaking. I hated it with a passion, but should have taken more. Maybe even some communication course that included interviewing.
> Nothing I ever took in school was as valuable as all the speaking in front of groups that I did when getting my Master's. Unless this is natural for you. I was terrified of it, and now I'm comfortable.


I took the year long speech communications instead of the one semester rhetoric course for that very reason. I got the writting requirement statisifed, but I also got to work on preparing/giving speeches which I needed mega help with as I was a VERY shy person and absolutely hated speaking in front of people.

Chemical Engineering was part of the liberal arts college instead of the engineering college, so I had to take all the well rounded stuff in addition to the engineering. They were a pain, but a stress relief at the same time as they weren't as hard core. Two of my favs were probably Archeology of IL (one of those careers I would have loved, but you are poor) and Greek and Roman mythology. The profs organized the classes such that it was storytime every class. It was like being a kid again.


----------



## C-Dog

After giving my recent [graduate] exam, where one question was about determining a simple stress (s=P/A) and strain (Hooks law-&gt; s=Ee) where only 40% of the class got it right, I now agree with this whole thing 100%. Even if I did not cover this in class, any engineer or engineering student should be able to get that question right, with out studying! I though that question was the one gimme on the test, but I was proved wrong.

Hopefully they learn from their mistakes.


----------



## kevo_55

^^ C-Dogg, I guess this proves that just by having a masters or PhD doesn't make you any smarter.


----------



## ROBIAMEIT

I agree with previous statements . . . .

this B+30 crap is going to drive people OUT of engineering . . . .

after going through ALL THE CRAP to get an undergrad degree WHO IN THIER RIGHT MIND is going to want to take more classes . . . . .

All i could think was TG I AM DONE!! . . . THEN the EIT . . .THEN the PE . . . . .

AND FOR WHAT PAY????

you have GOT to be kidding me!!

if i HAD to do another 30 i'd be looking to get into sales or teaching . . . . they make MORE (SALES!) or just as much money without the headaches!!


----------



## Guest

C-Dog said:


> After giving my recent [graduate] exam, where one question was about determining a simple stress (s=P/A) and strain (Hooks law-&gt; s=Ee) where only 40% of the class got it right, I now agree with this whole thing 100%. Even if I did not cover this in class, any engineer or engineering student should be able to get that question right, with out studying! I though that question was the one gimme on the test, but I was proved wrong.


I see this problem every day with all sorts of professionals, not just engineers. That was why I elevated my argument to the structure of the educational system - it is archaic and isn't allowing for the top achievers to continue to perform at thier best while maintaining an EQUITABLE education for those who graduate with a high school diploma.

[rant]

It sickens me to listen to people bitch about the youth of this country. In many respects, I believe MY generation has betrayed them by not keeping educational curriculum current and RELEVANT. What does it mean to graduate with a high school diploma anymore? I know several recipients of high school diplomas that are FUNCTIONALLY ILLITERATE - my stepson to name one.

The only way to shore up the integrity of professional licensure and education in general is to get away from the dummy down, everyone needs to feel good about themselves principles. While I promote and encourage programs that address learning disabilities and even physical and/or emotional problems, it doesn't mean that the whole of the education system needs to be dropped.

If I were a teenager, say 16 - I would drop out of school now too. What is the point? Spend a full day for five days each week in classes for two more years for things that will have relatively little impact on my ability to earn $, so I can spend even more money on a college education where the tuition is increased by 5% - 10% per year? Has anyone run the NPV calculations on the loss in income?

The dummy-down trickle down is beginning to be seen in our ranks now too ....

[/rant]

On a slightly different note, my wife is an interim director for clinical services at a rehabilitation skilled nursing facility. She has nearly twenty years of experience working her way up through the ranks and understands the duties and responbilities of each position quite well. She can ably and effectively direct those skilled nursing services because of her experience - not education. She has found herself in the position of releasing staff due to negligent care because of how woefully unprepared nurses are due to the short education (1-yr LPN, 2-yr RN) + clinicals and a relatively easy licensing exam you take directly out of school. Unfortunately, many of the young men and women she encounters were doing it simply for the money and just trying to follow the motions - actions that can end you up in deep voodoo, especially when it comes to endangering someone's life. I hear these horror stories nightly ... not a pretty sight!

IMHO, for the engineering profession, we have got to integrate 'hands-on' time with education and if that happened to lead to a BS+30 approach I would be in favor of such a move *IF* the PE experience requirement would be reduced by a pre-determined factor. This would be a fair, equitable way to increase the integrity of the education through a mandatory externship and promote involvement of practicing engineers (PE's) in the education system.

:2cents:

JR


----------



## C-Dog

jregieng said:


> ...we have got to integrate 'hands-on' time with education and if that happened to lead to a BS+30 approach I would be in favor of such a move *IF* the PE experience requirement would be reduced by a pre-determined factor. This would be a fair, equitable way to increase the integrity of the education through a mandatory externship and promote involvement of practicing engineers (PE's) in the education system.



I don't think you can reduce the experience requirement even with the BS+30. I probably could not have passed the PE exam under the experience requirement. I think in those first couple of years out of school, your head is spinning, just trying to figure out the company culture, standards....

:2cents:


----------



## squishles10

C-Dog said:


> I don't think you can reduce the experience requirement even with the BS+30. I probably could not have passed the PE exam under the experience requirement. I think in those first couple of years out of school, your head is spinning, just trying to figure out the company culture, standards....
> :2cents:


The current California requirement is just 2 years, and although it is with the BS+30, with a Master's degree, it's only 1. Granted, there are more tests there, but I know quite a few that pass all on the first try, both after 1 and 2 years of experience. I don't think experience has done anything to help me on this exam. My master's degree has given me the depth area knowledge and references that I would not have otherwise had, but until they start asking about modeling, my experience was useless. A masters and a review class right out of school would have made passing this exam a lot easier than it is right now.


----------



## Katiebug

kevo_55 said:


> ^^ C-Dogg, I guess this proves that just by having a masters or PhD doesn't make you any smarter.


Some of the people at my corporate research center prove this regularly. I had a field visit in January completely wrecked because the field engineer and I spent the week babysitting a PhD with more brains than sense. We had to constantly tell him not to touch things and that he simply could NOT do what he wanted to do, for reasons of safety. The man is brilliant with aero-acoustics, but he made me nervous as heck around rotating machinery.

He's just one example. I know a few guys and gals with doctorates who are great with hands-on work and in doing fundamental engineering work - but most are completely clueless on both counts. Some of the finest engineers in my organization have only a bachelor's degree, although many have a master's that they picked up along the course of a career.



jregieng said:


> IMHO, for the engineering profession, we have got to integrate 'hands-on' time with education and if that happened to lead to a BS+30 approach I would be in favor of such a move *IF* the PE experience requirement would be reduced by a pre-determined factor. This would be a fair, equitable way to increase the integrity of the education through a mandatory externship and promote involvement of practicing engineers (PE's) in the education system.


Up in the Great White North where all engineers have to have a P.Eng to work legally as an "engineer", there is _still_ an experience requirement. In Ontario, an EIT is obtained by virtue of graduating from an approved college program in engineering (or by testing for many foreign graduates). Four years of documented engineering experience later, the EIT takes a 3-hour ethics test and upon passing, is a licensed P.Eng. The main difference is that for people with that approved education, there's no FE or PE-type exams; licensure is education- and experience-based without a technical test component.

I would be OK with such a system - documented experience in the field is important, IMO. I would not want to let an engineer be licensed without proving that he or she can do fundamental work in their area of specialization. I've encountered a few really incompetent/stupid graduate engineers, the kind of people where you wonder how the hell they got through engineering school. They're the ones who seem to go to law or B-school after a year or two...


----------



## C-Dog

More changes to BS +30...

http://www.ncees.org/licensure/licensure_e.../le_2008_04.pdf

Now goes into effect 2020 and some minor wording changes


----------



## IlPadrino

C-Dog said:


> More changes to BS +30...
> http://www.ncees.org/licensure/licensure_e.../le_2008_04.pdf
> 
> Now goes into effect 2020 and some minor wording changes


Note that this is a PROPOSED change that has yet to be presented to the UPLG Committee.

Two things jumped out at me from the articles (quoted below)...



> Another significant change apparent in the proposed language above is that the implementation date for the bachelor’s plus 30 has been moved five years to 2020. This was suggested by the Bachelor’s plus 30 Task Force in order to provide adequate time for the Council to work out the details of implementation, to allow Member Boards the time to work out the details of the new requirements,and to allow engineering students planning to pursue licensure to prepare their plans of study accordingly. This postponement will be presented by UPLG as a separate motion.


It takes 12 (twelve!) years to work out the details of implementation? I can't believe anyone seriously believes that (or am I just too clueless on how the world works?). Regarding the time to allow engineering students planning to pursue licensure to prepare plans of study... well that's BS flag #2. You can't start preparing until you've got your undergraduate degree done, and last time I checked, getting 30 credits of graduate level education doesn't take 12 years, even for the most part-time of student.

And this leads me to a larger question/concern... one of motivation.



> The debate over additional education requirements for engineering licensure, and the implementation of the requirement at the state level, is an ongoing process that indicates the Council’s commitment to ensuring that future licensees possess the necessary knowledge to protect the public through their work. It also indicates our commitment to upholding and even enhancing the level of prestige associated with holding the professional engineer license.


If the issue is protecting the public, how can we afford to wait 12 years? And given everyone will be grandfathered, it's clear there's a recognition that experience serves the same end as education (otherwise, you'd have to denounce the horror of grandfathering!) So why not build that into the experience vs. education equation?

I'm curious to know how others think this will uphold (AND EVEN) enhance the level of prestige associated with licensure. Personally, I'm throwing BS flag #3. I could maybe see an advanced degree, but I don't know that anyone's going to care about 30 credits of graduate-level humanities education (which, if I understand right, would count towards the 30 credits - it doesn't have to be engineering related).

Thanks for the link - I've got to get on their mailing lists.


----------



## Dleg

^^Exactly. If it's prestige they're (we're) after, why not just go ahead and require an MS or ME? At least that way there's a degree associated with the extra work.

And I still wonder why ABET is not a more important player in all of this. If we as engineers feel it is important to have a higher-level degree so that we can seem more on the same level as lawyers (which to me, is a big step DOWN), then why not change the entire education system and offer a graduate degree simlar to a JD that then becomes the pre-requisite to becoming a professional engineer?

I have a feeling that there is a very BIG reason ABET is not a bigger player in this: they simply don't agree, because their primary motivation is education, not prestige.

Yeah, this is starting to stink of BS more and more.


----------



## Mike in Gastonia

IlPadrino said:


> It takes 12 (twelve!) years to work out the details of implementation? I can't believe anyone seriously believes that (or am I just too clueless on how the world works?).


It seems like one of the previous articles said something about taking a long time for states to get their legislation changed.


----------



## Steve

how do you think this affects existing PE's that do not have an MS, does the additional requirement diminsh thier credentials?


----------



## IlPadrino

Mike in Gastonia said:


> It seems like one of the previous articles said something about taking a long time for states to get their legislation changed.


I thought this was about a model law that States were free to take or leave, although obviously encouraged to take.


----------



## snickerd3

IlPadrino said:


> I thought this was about a model law that States were free to take or leave, although obviously encouraged to take.


Illinois has basically already said they'll do what NCEES wants, they just need the details to change the rules.


----------



## IlPadrino

snickerd3 said:


> Illinois has basically already said they'll do what NCEES wants, they just need the details to change the rules.


Yeah... so it doesn't take TWELVE years to organize.


----------



## JPGOLF

BringItOn said:


> We all can express our opinion and can have different point of views. With that said it is OK Chaos, I do not feel singled out. You did it with class and respect so no worries my friend. But the truth is that it is frutrating. Most of the times NCEES "suggests" and the fudging state boards do not even flinch and do what NCEES "suggested". Who the heck took the decission of not reporting scores? Why? How about the calculators? What are the criteria to include a calc on the list of banned or allowed? Things like that are the ones that really bother me.
> One of these days NCEES will suggest the Boards to make us take the test every 5 years so we can renew the license. Sounds crazy? Wait and see. What will we win with that? Nothing...nada...What will NCEES and the Boards will win?....$$$$$$$$hhhhhh.
> 
> Maybe I am over the top but it is the way I feel. It is very uncomfortable to have an organization, just one, having so much decissional power over our profession. It is not fair.


Hey man,

I always assumed the not reporting scores was a faster and cheaper way to grade exams. That way the machine only grades until it knows you passed and moves on. WHat do yuo think?

JPGOLF


----------



## Guest

^^^ Actually, each exam is graded in whole and those numbers go through a series of statistical analysis by a select group of subject matter experts like the ones below ..







:17:

JR


----------

