# Enhanced Education Requirements for the PE



## Road Guy (Oct 9, 2006)

Sad saps wish to require a masters + degree to sit for the PE exam (its a good thing the states decide who sits for the exam and not NCEES)

Have these guys ever worked in the "real world" ? outside of academics?

This is not the way to go about "bringing value" to the profession, it has been tried in so many other professions and failed, why do they think it will bring value to engineers?

While I have a masters degree, IMO I would rather hire someone with 1 year of work experience than someone with a Masters Degree (7 0 experience) any day of the week..

http://www.ncees.org/news/index.php?release_id=1


----------



## civengPE (Oct 9, 2006)

I did notice that anything over 120 credit hours counts toward the required extra 30 outlined in the proposal. So I guess that means I would need another 5 credit hours to qualify for the exam under the new requirements.

My question is this. How many hours did you have when you graduated? I had 145 and all of them were required.


----------



## Road Guy (Oct 9, 2006)

I dont honestly know, I was on the quarter system when I graduated I would have to look it up.

All this will do IMO is discourage "Americans" from getting an engineering degree due to extra coursework and increase the # of engineers from India &amp; China, who have to get a masters degree anway (to have there undergrad validated) to come here and take the place of American students who decide to major in something else.

Is NCEES charged with setting the standards?

In most states the legislature has to decide to change the requirements for who sits for the exam.


----------



## RIP - VTEnviro (Oct 9, 2006)

I had around 128 hours I think as an undergrad. Then 30 additional hours for a master's.

I've heard that the idea of requiring a master's degree to become a PE has been tossed around for a bit. I remember hearing about it in college maybe 5 years ago.

I'm not sure how I feel about it. A lot of the topics on the PE exam were very similar to what I had in grad school. And seeing as I took the PE less than a year out of grad school, the stuff I learned really helped me pass the test.

However, I'm not really sure how much grad school helped my ability as an engineer. If definitely helped get me more money, and a leg up on the competition. But as far as on the job design skills, not so much.

I wonder if it will narrow down the number of PE's in the future. Maybe it will weed out some less serious folks, but it would also weed out folks that don't have the time or money for grad school.


----------



## Road Guy (Oct 9, 2006)

weird, i just checked my transcript and I had 154 hours ?

you mean you slackers only had to have 128? Get a damn masters degree! 

maybe its not that big a deal, but I still think NCEES doesnt have any business setting policy outside of the administration of the exam.

Luckily here in Georgia, you can still be a PE with zero college expereince, of course you have to pass the EIT &amp; PE, and have about 16 years experience, but techically it can be done...


----------



## DVINNY (Oct 9, 2006)

I have 136 hours, and needed them to graduate my B.S.

You needed 154? or was that for masters?


----------



## Road Guy (Oct 9, 2006)

I took 2 extra survey classes after I graduated (for the LSIT) but when I pulled up my transcripts online it said I had 154 hours?

maybe I took some extra crap i didnt need :dunno:

my masters was seperate...


----------



## rdbse (Oct 9, 2006)

275 credit hours here for me, so bring it on NCEES!!

Too bad I already passed the PE exam.


----------



## RIP - VTEnviro (Oct 9, 2006)

^ Professional Student? :study


----------



## rdbse (Oct 9, 2006)

Two undergrad degrees (one non-engineering) and a masters degree... I was officially done with school at the age of 30, when I switched from a P.S. to a P.E.


----------



## EdinNO (Oct 10, 2006)

RG,

I originally thought it would boost our profession. Fewere engineers/less supply equals more demand.

But your poijnt makes sense too- more foreigners will be encouraged to fill the void, which will lessen our value.

Who knows. Hopefully by the time it all shakes out, I'll be more into a management type deal anyeay where engineering won't matter as much to me.

BTW, I THINK I had around 135-140 hours.

Ed


----------



## DrFranz (Oct 10, 2006)

> I had around 128 hours I think as an undergrad. Then 30 additional hours for a master's.
> I've heard that the idea of requiring a master's degree to become a PE has been tossed around for a bit. I remember hearing about it in college maybe 5 years ago.
> 
> I'm not sure how I feel about it. A lot of the topics on the PE exam were very similar to what I had in grad school. And seeing as I took the PE less than a year out of grad school, the stuff I learned really helped me pass the test.
> ...


they should add to the requirement to sit for the PE to have a chinese or indian citizenship

:lmao:


----------



## DrFranz (Oct 10, 2006)

sh**t I have 270 credits for first level degree (dipl.- Ing. degree - old german school system) + 30 for MS + 40 for MBA + 53 for Ph.D. = 393 credit hours...

and all that while working full time...


----------



## DrFranz (Oct 10, 2006)

Agreed... all those degrees (except for the MBA) don't really help a lot professionally... for engineering design. The knowledge acquired during the first degree is what I use some 90-85% of the time and some advanced FEM for modeling and dynamics from MS/PhD that I use some 15-10% of the time. For management, the MBA conceprs helped a bit, but for risk assessment, BD, etc the MBA helped some 60%. the rest is just experience.

Now, with respect to foreign degrees, FL is pretty stringent. I have several friends specially from India w/ a B. Tech. that could get the PE in CA but it was not recognized in FL because theit B. Tech. did not meet the standards and the FL board sent them back to get some extra 20-30 credits in humanities...

Well, I guess it's good to have a PE and forget about those issues... they keep changing the laws here and there... at the begining a PhD did not need to take the EI exam, but they added a 3 year as a full time professor to the requirements... go figure... my advise, get the damn thing ASAP before they require you the citizenship, the masters and God know what else.


----------



## ferryg (Nov 7, 2006)

I was wondering what some of you guys thought about the recent hooplah about increasing the educational requirements in order to be eligible to take the PE exam.

Personally, I can understand where they are coming from, and I don't have a huge problem with it. But, I can also see the other side. I look at it like this, the engineering profession is completely fixated on public safety and public well-being. I really can't see a problem with augmenting the educational requirements in order to call yourself a professional.

Though one of the immediate problems I see, is that there will likely be LESS engineers and not more. Younger people, knowing that they will now be required (assuming that is the law in their state) to gain an additional two years of education to become a professional, might start pursuing other endeavors when they head off to college.

In an ideal world, less engineers should make the salaries of existing engineers go up, however me thinks this will not be the case.

I don't know...I was just curious how others felt about it. Like I said, it personally doesn't affect me all that much. Just interested in the feelings of others.


----------



## Road Guy (Nov 7, 2006)

I was sort of hot about it at first, but then I realized its really an attempt to increase the number of hours taught at engineering schools, I guess some schools have fallen behind in the # of hours required to earn a degree.

If you look most of us probably already exceed the # of required hours already.

Also its up to the legislature in each state to decide who can sit for the exam, not the NCEES.


----------



## ferryg (Nov 7, 2006)

That's true....but I wonder how this will affect reciprocity. Are states that DO require the additional eduacation going to grant a PE license through reciprocity from a candidate who passed the exam in a state WITHOUT the additional educational requirements.

I agree...I don't have a huge problem with it either. I just wonder about issues like that.


----------



## Road Guy (Nov 7, 2006)

yeah if some states adopted it it could really screw things up reciprocity/comity speaking...

I would imagine there would be some grandfathering?

If it came down to it, so long as they accept the previous passing exam score, and then say I want to move to a state that requires 6 more credit hours than I have, so long as I ONLY have to go take 2 classes(&amp; get a C :thumbsup: ) and not have to retake the PE after taking the additional hours...

My biggest problem is that I also think they are trying to build up the profession through education, some engineers think having a masters degree will require the public to look at us like doctors/lawyers, etc. I dont know how many of you have done hiring, but I will take a gal/guy with a year of real experience over a masters degree and 0 expereince any day of the week (&amp; Yes I have a masters degree as well-its just not in Engineering)

They could require all Engineers have a phd and we still wont get the same respect as doctors/lawyers, etc. It doesnt bother me, both my brother in law and his wife are doctors, I could design a bridge to the moon, and I still wouldnt be able to trump handing out free prescriptions and armchair medical advice to the family...


----------



## ferryg (Nov 7, 2006)

I agree completely, once again. I think the real motive is to put us on a level with doctors and lawyers. Those three have always been considered the three traditional professions (though I think teachers should be included in that). Since doctors and lawyers have required additional education...engineers are finally catching up.

:resp


----------



## DVINNY (Nov 7, 2006)

I merged these two topics BTW.

I'm on the fence with this issue. I haven't came to an opinion yet, because I see points on both sides.


----------



## Guest (Nov 7, 2006)

I really think this is just really more of the same grandstanding done by focus groups and committees. The business model for engineering isn't predicated on who is the brightest; therefore, it follows that raising the education requirements for professional licensure is not a direct result for improving the earning power of a professional license.

If there is really anything that needs to be done, that is reform the licensure/examination *PROCESS* !!! Continuing education and peer review in our profession is what is going to build up the profession, not an additional 30 credit hours of coursework.

Given that most states have handed over their authority to NCEES to determine who is minimally competent for engineering licensure, I don't see this being picked up by many states unless there is a special need or circumstance. '.02'

Don't get me wrong now, I am all for individual improvement - just not at the expense of a recommendation from a committee that appears to be far removed from the isssues of the profession.

Regards,

JR


----------



## Dleg (Nov 7, 2006)

Let me apologize now for the length of this, but I feel a rant coming on...

I think that certain engineering fields, especially civil, have become so broad that additional credit hours would probably be a good idea just to get a BS. I mean, check out the environmental field. There's so much overlap between the "environmental" and "civil" branches of engineering, that I wonder what the purpose of either is. For example, if I become licensed as an Environmental Engineer, in my state at least and pretty much every other state I have researched (especially CA which doesn't even recognize Env.), anyone with a Civil PE can legally do what I do - there's no difference in the public's eye between the two. Except that I won't be allowed to do the other stuff a CE can do. So I would argue that either "Civil" engineering needs to be broken up into "smaller chunks," or that the "Civil" degree needs to become at least a five-year program.

On the other hand, I agree that a graduate degree is no indication at all of actual ability or skill in the real world. That's what I thought the PE licensing system was all about. I have worked with countless MS and PhD's who could barely find their way to the bathroom, and by far the highest turnover I have seen in all the fields I have worked in so far has been among those holding graduate degrees. Maybe they expect more from their employment, or maybe the extra schooling just dulls their ability to accept the sometimes menial tasks that everyone has to face once in a while in the real world.

"oldtimer" "_Why I remember..."_ way back when I started working in the oil field as a well logging engineer, my first job out of engineering school, the company I worked for (Schlumberger Well Services) was in the midst of a new recruiting strategy to aim for only the best &amp; brightest from North America's top geology schools. Their professional recruiters wined &amp; dined MS and PhD candidates, took them on ski trips, you name it. I ended up getting thrown in with this lot simply because my non-geology university was nearby to one of their field offices, and I thought it sounded cool to not have to go to work behind a desk. No wining and dining. So I end up in their training school in Canada a few months later with the best and the brightest of North American geology. The training consisted of a 2-month "boot camp" of 6 days a week, sometimes 24-hours a day classroom and field training focused on theory, performance, and equipment repair/maintenance. Real hands-on stuff. At the end of the two months, at the top of the class was myself and one other lowly BS holder from Canada. Within 6 months, back in the actual "field," we were the only two left out of the original group. The rest had all left. Good guys and gals, don't get me wrong, they just weren't cut out for the pressures of that particular type of work. (to be fair, not many people are, and the turnover rate is pretty much the same no matter what pool they recruit from).

But that's not to say that I don't think there's any value in higher degrees or more education. But I do believe that such things are of more value later in one's career, once a person knows what they want to be doing. I don't think it's a good idea for anyone to go straight from a BS to a graduate program, until they have worked for a while, unless they only intend to work as a "scientist" or remain in academics. But that's just my opinion. I agree that NCEES seems to be under the undue influence of academics. I believe that a BS in engineering, plus relevant work experience, the ability to pass the PE in your primary field, and quality continuing education should continue to be the focus. The PE is a _professional_ certification; not a degree. If NCEES thinks the current engineering curricula (?) are not adequate, then this is something I feel ABET should deal with strictly within the confines of their academic kingdom. If ABET says 5 years are required for an engineering BS, then you will hear no argument from me. But NCEES telling us that we need more schooling... well...

And what is this going to mean in the long run for people like me, who have switched fields since graduating? (now you see the real motivation for the rant. _It's always about ME_) Will we fall through the cracks? Will we get left sitting in the office, preparing all the work for the 20-something MS holder to stamp for us? Reviewing his drawings? Holding his hand while we help him find his way to the bathroom? Giving up our window desk because he has a masters degree, and we don't? :true:

The states have developed their licensing regulations for a reason. Anyone who works in any regulatory field can tell you that one size DOES NOT FIT ALL. Hence the varying levels of experience required depending on the type of degree you hold, and the ability for the board to consider each applicant on an individual basis (which also opens the door to abuses, but that's life). I hope the states continue with that policy, unless of course ABET steps forward to do their job, so that NCEES doesn't feel the need to.

At any rate, this probably won't affect any of us, so why worry?

Rant off. (where's the rant on/off emoticon?)


----------



## royal flush (Nov 7, 2006)

I'd go for continuing education, in order to maintain your license... rather than a masters before you can even sit for the exam. I agree that we shouldn't be discouraging folks from a profession that very obviously needs people...

Do any states require CEU's after passing the PE?


----------



## DVINNY (Nov 7, 2006)

> Do any states require CEU's after passing the PE?


Don't most?

PDH's are just increments to CEU's.


----------



## singlespeed (Nov 8, 2006)

Dleg

Well said

DVINNY

MI doesn't currently require anything but fees to maintain the PE license.


----------



## Mike in Gastonia (Nov 8, 2006)

OK, color me confused. Where does it say you have to have a masters?



> The approved language states that an engineer intern with a bachelor's degree must have an additional 30 credits of acceptable upper-level undergraduate or graduate-level coursework from approved providers....


I understand that there is concern that to achieve a bachelors degree is requiring fewer and fewer hours and there is concern that engineering degrees are becoming "watered down", I don't see where it says masters.

Does "approved providers" have to mean college? Maybe this will get societies off their cans and offer some really good, meaty classes - not just these 3 hour fluff seminars......


----------



## purduegrad (Nov 8, 2006)

Does an Masters in Business count towards the new PE requirements. I truly believe that an MBA is more useful in the real world than most masters in engineering degrees.


----------



## EdinNO (Nov 8, 2006)

> Does an Masters in Business count towards the new PE requirements. I truly believe that an MBA is more useful in the real world than most masters in engineering degrees.


Word!

I agree!

Heck, my bachelor's degree was more than I need- technically speaking.


----------



## Road Guy (Nov 8, 2006)

I would be curious to see if the MBA would count (especially since I already have one :BK: )

I think if you look at your transcripts most of us probably alreay have close to the amount requested by the ncees. I was "hot" about this until I fond out I already had more than enough hours with just my undergrad (But I did take a few extra survey courses after I graduated so that I could take the LSIT)

I still also think ncees should just stick to the exam, and let the states decide who can and cannot sit for the exam in their state.


----------



## MetroRAFB (Nov 8, 2006)

> I still also think ncees should just stick to the exam, and let the states decide who can and cannot sit for the exam in their state.


I disagree, I think the whole process should be run by the UN and the standards should apply to the whole World.

:jk:


----------



## Mike in Gastonia (Nov 8, 2006)

> I still also think ncees should just stick to the exam, and let the states decide who can and cannot sit for the exam in their state.


You do realize that NCEES is comprised of the state boards, right?

I'm pretty sure that all of the committees listed in your link are made up of state board members. I think I read in one of the Licensure Exchange newsletters that they put out (you can read them on their website), that there's only 50 or 60 people who actually "work" for NCEES. But all of the decisions, policy, etc., comes from committees made up of the state boards.


----------



## DVINNY (Nov 8, 2006)

> Does "approved providers" have to mean college? Maybe this will get societies off their cans and offer some really good, meaty classes - not just these 3 hour fluff seminars......


Good point.

That would be nice. I think specific cources would be much better for continuing ed vs. college courses that are geared towards the engineering student. We are no longer 'students' in that matter, but are experienced professionals that look for something specific to our fields. College coursework is anything but specific.

But, just think about how tough some of the college courses seemed at the time, and now, with the understanding of processes that you have, how much easier the concepts would be for us.

The real world experience is what is priceless. and I think the societies could harness that into courses better than higher ed.


----------



## Road Guy (Nov 8, 2006)

State Boards and State Legislatures are still different animals, the board still has to get the state legislature to write a bill, get it passed , signed by the governor, etc for the changes to take effect.

I dont know about other states, but even slight changes to the engineer requirements in my state have been hard to get passed, even with the boards approval.


----------



## DrFranz (Nov 8, 2006)

> The real world experience is what is priceless. and I think the societies could harness that into courses better than higher ed.


Absolutely true. I always tell that to my junior engineers. The most remarkable thing that my Ph.D. has taught me is to think. If that was done at a bachelor's level, we really wouldn't need a higher degree. Most BS graduates just want to find the way to apply the formulas (as well as most MS graduates). Learn to think comes otherwise only with experience and after stumbling into some hard blocks. Other than a Ph.D., mistakes are the best way to learn (I recommend someone else's mistakes). I agree that education requirements should be a matter of ABET and not NCEES, but someone has to step up to the plate. Recently we have even seen advertisements about online degrees that take a couple years to get a BS. I don't think that any real engineer would respect such a degree and that is really diminishing the engineering profession in the public eyes. Lis someone said before, fewer engineers (PE's) will increase the rates, since companies will have to work hard on their bids to get the fewer PE's. In addition, I believe that there should be tougher rules in accepting some foreign degrees. I know that FL does a decent job evaluating those "degrees" (I saw a guy from india that had a 3 yr technology degree and got a MS... that shouldn't qualify him to take the PE anywhere) but states like CA, don't really pay much attention to that. My '.02'


----------



## tmckeon_PE (Nov 8, 2006)

I had 162 or so hours when I graduated (145 required, but changed majors from computer and math eng to civil). Wouldn't be that hard.


----------



## ferryg (Nov 9, 2006)

> > I still also think ncees should just stick to the exam, and let the states decide who can and cannot sit for the exam in their state.
> 
> 
> I disagree, I think the whole process should be run by the UN and the standards should apply to the whole World.
> ...


Well...with the Democrats gaining power....maybe that's more of a possibility. ld timer:


----------



## DrFranz (Nov 10, 2006)

yup, there are no more chances of framing the NCEES for WMD :dddd:


----------



## NSEARCH (Nov 14, 2006)

> I still also think ncees should just stick to the exam, and let the states decide who can and cannot sit for the exam in their state.


They do. Each individual state board will have to decide if they are going to adopt NCEES's new ruling.


----------



## DVINNY (Nov 14, 2006)

I have two questions:

1) If they do pass the +30 hrs, will the hours have to be course work for an accredited program? Because I don't see how 30 hours of advanced speed reading, basket weaving, or english lit is going to make any engineer more apt to pass a freakin PE exam.

2) If they do pass the +30 hrs. thing, how will they enact it? It would have to grandfather those like us, and begin with say the graduating class of 2009 or something wouldn't it?


----------

