# CHANGES I’D LIKE TO SEE IN THE ENGINEERING PROFESSION



## Freon (Jul 11, 2008)

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I would like to propose a solution to a set of common complaints I routinely see on this board: Pay, Value of Licensure &amp; Respect from other Professional Occupations. My idea, an active campaign of letter writing to our respective State and Federal Legislatures calling for elimination of the “Exempt” Engineering fields; restrictions on the use of the title “Engineer” to licensed P.E.s, and more stringent requirements for “stamped” documents. For example:

On all letterhead and business cards, level of Engineering Certification must be shown.

(My neighbor in the next office would have to put Graduate Mechanical Engineer on his cards instead of Chief Mechanical Engineer)

No more building maintenance workers being called “Building Engineers”

“Prescriptions” to buy certain building and construction supplies, signed and stamped of course. Want to buy a circuit breaker at Home Depot? (OK, maybe this is going too far.)

Freon


----------



## FusionWhite (Jul 11, 2008)

Changes I would like to see:

No more thread topics in all CAPS. (Im in a bad mood today, so Ill shut up now)


----------



## Freon (Jul 11, 2008)

Point taken, It is just a habit from work-place coorspondance.


----------



## csb (Jul 11, 2008)

Hmm...would I miss the sound technician engineers, who are really just guys that plug in the microphones?

Not really


----------



## gymrat1279 PE (Jul 11, 2008)

My cousin's husband is a tools engineer... what is that? I don't even know if he has a college degree.


----------



## sehad (Jul 11, 2008)

I think all licensed engineers get frustrated with this. But the point is, laws do not scare people....enforcement of laws is what does it. How exactly will you enforce that?


----------



## Casey (Jul 11, 2008)

sehad said:


> How exactly will you enforce that?


Caning.


----------



## benbo (Jul 11, 2008)

gymrat1279 PE said:


> My cousin's husband is a tools engineer... what is that? I don't even know if he has a college degree.


From what I read, JR is the Chief Tool Engineer around here these days.


----------



## Katiebug (Jul 11, 2008)

Re: "Sanitation engineers" and the like...get rid of them. IMO if you don't have an accredited engineering degree, it's baloney to call yourself an "engineer". Naturally one could make exceptions in rare circumstances but I do believe it dilutes the profession to have someone with no engineering background being CALLED an engineer. I have nothing but respect for my field engineer, who has been working with elevators for much longer than I've been alive. When it comes to practical experience and ability to troubleshoot a problem, he is the king - but he doesn't have an engineering degree and would be unable to handle a lot of the tasks that a graduate mechanical or electrical engineer would be expected to have. He's great at what he does, but he's no engineer. In the US, some of our field engineers have associate's degrees or even a bachelor's in engineering, but some do not. In Canada, our field engineers have to have an engineering degree and P.Eng or they cannot call themselves engineers legally. If not they have to call themselves "field support associate" or something along those lines.

Re: Calling oneself an engineer _sans _PE...not so much in agreement, mainly because the overwhelming majority of mechanical, electrical, materials, and chemical engineers work in exempt industry and thus had have no need for a PE. Most of them are damned good at what they do, and it would be an insult to make them out as "less of an engineer" because they had no reason to go through the often-laborious process of getting a PE. I am a mechanical engineer and I do believe I've earned the right to call myself such.

Re: requiring a PE. If the system were changed to require a PE without grandfathering in the engineers in exempt industry, there would be uproar. Are you _really_ in favor of making a 60 year old mechanical engineer with nearly 40 years of experience, a huge list of patents, and a master's degree struggle through re-learning chemistry and circuits in order to pass the EIT? Also, what will you do for the huge number of engineers from exempt industry who lack ANYONE in their organization with a PE to recommend them? I have two PEs who can vouch for me, and one has an expired license (he never uses it, so he didn't renew it), plus two with a Canadian P.Eng, which my state board will not accept as equivalent to the US PEs. Heck, I don't know how the hell I'll find the three endorsers with a PE that I'm going to need, since by my state board's definition I only have one (and he's in a different area of engineering than me - he's electrical, I'm mechanical). If suddenly the 150+ engineers in my organization all needed a PE, it would be utter mayhem.

I've said it before, but I would be in favor of a system like the Canadians have. Everyone who wishes to practice the engineering profession has to have a P.Eng. Those with an accredited engineering degree automatically have an EIT-type credential, and after I believe 4 years of supervised, appropriate engineering work experience they take a 2 hour ethics exam and when they pass, they get the P.Eng. Those who do not have an approved engineering degree have to take a variety of exams to prove competence but in large part the initial part of the engineering credential is handled by strict requirements for engineering undergraduate education. Those without the P.Eng can't legally call themselves "engineers", but engineers in every field typically have a P.Eng and can mentor and endorse the applications of the EITs. The system is streamlined and is pretty much the same from province to province. I'm not necessarily in favor of having the only testing be an ethics exam, but maybe we could do away with the FE exam for people with an ABET-accredited degree, and streamline the process for taking the PE exam while providing more options for depth in each area. Changes would need to be made to the way things are done, and it would have to be consistent from state to state. I would also suggest state boards allowing non-PEs to endorse applications. It is onerous for those of us in exempt industry to find endorsers with PEs these days.

Value of licensure is clear for the Civils in the group. I'm well aware of that. By making it a de facto requirement for most jobs in the field, it makes it easy to have a defined early career progression that includes work under the supervision of a licensed PE, who can later endorse the EIT when they apply for licensure.

However, try convincing a bunch of mechanical engineers in the aerospace industry (for example) that they MUST run out and get a PE. They'll have to first take a test with stuff they haven't needed to remember since their undergrad days. When they make it to the PE, unless their experience is in machine design, HVAC, or fluids/thermo, they'll need to take an expensive review course to learn one of those areas. Oh, and by the way, they'll have to do all of this with none of their supervisors or colleagues having the PE and being available to vouch for the quality of their work. Good luck with that...


----------



## SuperAlpha (Jul 11, 2008)

I often see engineers who used to work in exempt industry for many years and then start consulting, and that is not exempt. They ignore the law and operate anyway and when it finally gets enforced they complain and demand to be grandfathered.


----------



## sehad (Jul 11, 2008)

I still think that studying for the PE exam enforces certain areas that you have become weak on after the years you have been out of college. Being more aware of the job and the need for knowledge, you learn the concept to apply to your job and to the test and do not simply memorize the steps to get a good grade in the class as some did in college. The test does more good than just give you the right to stamp plans if you pass. Just my thoughts though, take it for what it's worth.


----------



## Slugger926 (Jul 11, 2008)

SuperAlpha said:


> I often see engineers who used to work in exempt industry for many years and then start consulting, and that is not exempt. They ignore the law and operate anyway and when it finally gets enforced they complain and demand to be grandfathered.


DITTO!!!!!!!!

Or the ones that consult through a temp agency when the temp agency has no PE's, nor State License, and still offers engineering services!!!!


----------



## EM_PS (Jul 11, 2008)

benbo said:


> From what I read, JR is the Chief Tool Engineer around here these days.


:thumbs: thinking along same lines. . . similar to the "tool pusher" (for those of us who have worked around drill rigs}

edit -

Katiebug, why the hell are you pursuing PE licensure? sounds like you're not only complaining about the perceived non-necessity of it for where you work &amp; your job, but about the work involved in obtaining it at all. If it ain't your cup of tea, don't go spitting in everybody else's cup.


----------



## squishles10 (Jul 11, 2008)

Texas has something in their laws saying that if you graduated with an engineering degree, then you can call yourself a graduate engineer. California has no such rule. I think that is a good way of taking care of the problem- then a chemical is still an engineer and no test is required. I agree the other crap should go- my ex boyfriend is a college dropout and a software engineer. We argue all the time about the fact that he's not really an engineer. I think a mass mailing to these people would put a stop to most of it.


----------



## SuperAlpha (Jul 11, 2008)

Slugger926 said:


> DITTO!!!!!!!!
> Or the ones that consult through a temp agency when the temp agency has no PE's, nor State License, and still offers engineering services!!!!


The firms that provide these services and masquerade as headhunters are NOT exempt. Texas is going after Aerotek and Oxford Engineering for this very reason.....


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Jul 11, 2008)

SuperAlpha said:


> Texas is going after Aerotek...


I hope they win...Aerotek is freakin' useless.


----------



## Slugger926 (Jul 11, 2008)

SuperAlpha said:


> The firms that provide these services and masquerade as headhunters are NOT exempt. Texas is going after Aerotek and Oxford Engineering for this very reason.....


AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! They should make the big corporations that hire contractors from places like Aerotek verify the licensing of the companies offering engineering services.

I know in one big corporation they are trying to masquerade these people as "contengent workers" rather than as "engineers", but they do the same job that I do. Many of the people Aerotek will sell for services have no engineering background. Also, they get four times what the guy they send to work at the big corporation. I would rather hire an engineer out of college for much less than what I would have to pay Aerotek or similiar companies, but big corporations play funny games with headcount.


----------



## IlPadrino (Jul 12, 2008)

squishles10 said:


> I agree the other crap should go- my ex boyfriend is a college dropout and a software engineer. We argue all the time about the fact that he's not really an engineer. I think a mass mailing to these people would put a stop to most of it.


I agree wholeheartedly, even if I was never able to convince Benbo that guys that write sofware are "developers", not engineers. This post didn't convince anyone, but I think that entire thread is an interesting backdrop for this current conversation.


----------



## SuperAlpha (Jul 12, 2008)

Software engineering is not the same as coding. Federal law even decclares software coding as a wage job and cannot be misclassified as salary just because of the high pay.

Coding is essentially formatting and configuring nowadays. Software engineering is development of the architecture, algorithms, and structure. A SWE would probably direct coders much like an EE or ME directs CAD technicians. A SWE can also do the work of a coder much like an EE can use a CAD program.

Diagrams, charts, and the resulting code are considered the design, and the compiled code is considered the product. If a company provides software engineering/design services then they must have PEs on staff supervising the work and be a registered firm. If they only distribute the product (compiled code) then they are exempt but must collect sales taxes, etc. It used to be that a sole proprietor (contract, non-W2) had to be a PE and also be registered as a firm in Texas.

Texas has a SWE PE but EE (electrical &amp; computer) PE can cover SWE. Currently they do not offer an exam for SWE and expect to within a year or so. They used to gather experience records and then waive the exam. Since they stopped waivers altogether, it kind of puts the hamper on the PE requirement. Since most SWEs are also EEs they suggest getting an EE PE. Texas does not limit a PE to a discipline but requires them to have experience in that discipline. Not all states are on-board with the SWE like they are for the other disciplines. According to the TBPE, once ~10 states agree, the other states join in.


----------



## Mike in Gastonia (Jul 12, 2008)

SuperAlpha said:


> Since most SWEs are also EEs they suggest getting an EE PE.


Looks like there are 15 ABET accredited software engineering programs, so that may no longer be the case.

 ABET 

EDIT - Oops. Can't link the search results. I changed the link to ABET's website, but here are the results



> A
> Auburn University
> 
> Auburn, AL
> ...


----------



## IlPadrino (Jul 12, 2008)

SuperAlpha said:


> Software engineering is not the same as coding. Federal law even decclares software coding as a wage job and cannot be misclassified as salary just because of the high pay.


Software engineering is not the same as engineering. If you want to classify it as a licensed profession, it's certainly closer to architecture than engineering. I'm sure you'd agree these software developers use the word "architecture" a lot more than they use the word "engineering".



SuperAlpha said:


> Texas has a SWE PE but EE (electrical &amp; computer) PE can cover SWE. Currently they do not offer an exam for SWE and expect to within a year or so. They used to gather experience records and then waive the exam. Since they stopped waivers altogether, it kind of puts the hamper on the PE requirement. Since most SWEs are also EEs they suggest getting an EE PE. Texas does not limit a PE to a discipline but requires them to have experience in that discipline. Not all states are on-board with the SWE like they are for the other disciplines. According to the TBPE, once ~10 states agree, the other states join in.


I imagine it would be NCEES that drives any watershed movement. And given they're all about INCREASING their purview, the cynic in me thinks it will likely go this way... but that doesn't mean I agree with it. If we let in software developers, we've begun down the slippery slope.


----------



## Mike in Gastonia (Jul 12, 2008)

IlPadrino said:


> Software engineering is not the same as engineering.


Do they not have to take Physics or Calculus or Engineering Mechanics? How is it not engineering?


----------



## EM_PS (Jul 12, 2008)

i agree that software engineering is valid discipline - Really, the older degrees of computer science - we're talking pre-pentium hardware - pretty much followed the exact path of EE or general eng undergrad schedule. At any rate, those grads could have easily taken the FE were they allowed to.


----------



## IlPadrino (Jul 12, 2008)

Mike in Gastonia said:


> Do they not have to take Physics or Calculus or Engineering Mechanics? How is it not engineering?


So do architects and physicists... they ain't engineers, though. Please explain why you think software developers are more like engineers than architects.


----------



## IlPadrino (Jul 12, 2008)

error_matrix said:


> i agree that software engineering is valid discipline - Really, the older degrees of computer science - we're talking pre-pentium hardware - pretty much followed the exact path of EE or general eng undergrad schedule. At any rate, those grads could have easily taken the FE were they allowed to.


Yes, they surely took general pre-engineering courses. I can tell you, though, from FIRST-HAND experience that the pre-pentium comp-sci majors (I was one of them in the early 1990s!), at my school at least, did NOT follow the path of EE of CSYS undergrads. While we all took the same first two years coursework (as did most everyone at RPI), it went wildly divergent from there.


----------



## Slugger926 (Jul 12, 2008)

IlPadrino said:


> So do architects and physicists... they ain't engineers, though. Please explain why you think software developers are more like engineers than architects.


Their programs do have Ergonomic Engineering implecations for their users.

Also, System Safety Engineering, Process Engineering, and Failure Mode and Effects Engineering should be applied in any program that your $$$ rides on, or any data that may affect your life or the life of a corporation. How about the problem where a program may cause traffic lights to turn green, or messes up a 911 call? Peoples lives, identities, and $$$ are at steak by un-licensed engineering being done inside computer networks.

Yes, they should be licensed, or working under a licensed engineer.


----------



## IlPadrino (Jul 12, 2008)

Slugger926 said:


> Also, System Safety Engineering, Process Engineering, and Failure Mode and Effects Engineering should be applied in any program that your $$$ rides on, or any data that may affect your life or the life of a corporation. How about the problem where a program may cause traffic lights to turn green, or messes up a 911 call? Peoples lives, identities, and $$$ are at steak by un-licensed engineering being done inside computer networks.


Control System Engineers may broadly cover most of these use cases.



Slugger926 said:


> Yes, they should be licensed, or working under a licensed engineer.


Just because public safety is involved doesn't mean they should be licensed as engineers. Sure, license it... just like cosmetologists are licensed. Or should we call cosmetologists "facial engineers"?


----------



## SuperAlpha (Jul 12, 2008)

In a medical product there are things to consider in the software side. These would be developed by the engineering team through risk analysys, operation analysis, etc.

1. usability must be thought out and user interfaces must be intuitive and prevent harm due to common-use

2. the safety architecture must be considered

I am sure there are more but those came to my mind first...


----------



## Slugger926 (Jul 12, 2008)

IlPadrino said:


> Control System Engineers may broadly cover most of these use cases.
> 
> 
> Just because public safety is involved doesn't mean they should be licensed as engineers. Sure, license it... just like cosmetologists are licensed. Or should we call cosmetologists "facial engineers"?


Oklahoma would have to change their Engineering Law if they went with your interpretation. Cosmetologists are not engineering systems that affect the public. Now, the products they used may be required to be engineered.


----------



## Slugger926 (Jul 12, 2008)

SuperAlpha said:


> In a medical product there are things to consider in the software side. These would be developed by the engineering team through risk analysys, operation analysis, etc.
> 1. usability must be thought out and user interfaces must be intuitive and prevent harm due to common-use
> 
> 2. the safety architecture must be considered
> ...


I found out last semester in Failure Mode and Effects Analysis that the medical industry engages engineers more than almost any other field. Of course, they want to blame any problems on the engineers rather than the doctor or nurse who had too little sleep.

Even the procedures that nurses and doctors follow are scrubbed by Licensed PE's in Industrial Engineering.


----------



## Mike in Gastonia (Jul 13, 2008)

IlPadrino said:


> So do architects and physicists... they ain't engineers, though. Please explain why you think software developers are more like engineers than architects.


It's pretty obvious you already have your mind made up and nothing I say is going to change your mind.


----------



## IlPadrino (Jul 13, 2008)

Mike in Gastonia said:


> It's pretty obvious you already have your mind made up and nothing I say is going to change your mind.


Well, I admit, I won't change my mind for sure if you aren't willing to write "something". But if I wasn't open to new ideas, I wouldn't be spending my time on this thread.


----------



## IlPadrino (Jul 13, 2008)

Slugger926 said:


> Oklahoma would have to change their Engineering Law if they went with your interpretation. Cosmetologists are not engineering systems that affect the public. Now, the products they used may be required to be engineered.


I don't know anything about Oklahoma Engineering Law, but what I meant was that many states (New York comes readily to mind) license most all "professionals" that impact public safety, cosmetologists included. Engineers don't have a monopoly on public safety.

I think we can agree that "engineering" is a pretty broad term... so the devil is in figuring out some boundaries that most everyone can agree on.

I haven't found a good definition for architecture (you'd think it's on the AIA website!), but intuitively software systems (if that's what you want to call teh output of software developers) seem architectural in nature, not engineering.


----------



## Slugger926 (Jul 13, 2008)

IlPadrino said:


> I don't know anything about Oklahoma Engineering Law, but what I meant was that many states (New York comes readily to mind) license most all "professionals" that impact public safety, cosmetologists included. Engineers don't have a monopoly on public safety.
> I think we can agree that "engineering" is a pretty broad term... so the devil is in figuring out some boundaries that most everyone can agree on.
> 
> I haven't found a good definition for architecture (you'd think it's on the AIA website!), but intuitively software systems (if that's what you want to call teh output of software developers) seem architectural in nature, not engineering.


Section 475.2. Definitions:

1. “Engineer” means a person who, by reason of special knowledge and use of the mathematical, physical and engineering sciences and the principles and methods of engineering analysis and design, acquired by engineering education and engineering experience, is qualified, after meeting the requirements of Section 475.1 et seq. of this title and the regulations issued by the Board pursuant thereto, to engage in the practice of engineering;

2. “Professional engineer” means a person who has been duly licensed as a professional engineer as provided in Section 475.1 et seq. of this title and the regulations issued by the Board pursuant thereto;

4. “Practice of engineering” means any service or creative work, the adequate performance of which requires *engineering education, training and experience in the application of special knowledge of the mathematical, physical and engineering sciences* to such services or creative work as consultation, investigation, evaluation, planning and design of engineering works and systems, planning the engineering use of land and water, teaching of advanced engineering subjects or courses related thereto, engineering research, engineering surveys, engineering studies, and the inspection or review of construction for the purposes of assuring compliance with drawings and specifications; any of which embraces such services or work, either public or private, in connection with any utilities, structures, buildings, machines, equipment, processes, work systems, projects, and industrial or consumer products or equipment of a mechanical, electrical, chemical, environmental, hydraulic, pneumatic or thermal nature, insofar as they involve safeguarding life, health or property, and including such other professional services as may be necessary to the design review and integration of a multidiscipline work, planning, progress and completion of any engineering services.

=====================================================


----------



## Slugger926 (Jul 13, 2008)

IlPadrino said:


> Well, I admit, I won't change my mind for sure if you aren't willing to write "something". But if I wasn't open to new ideas, I wouldn't be spending my time on this thread.


There is a big difference between a punk that writes a video game program for a Wii and someone that is going to make sure my stock accounts are safe, or if the control system on an artificial medical system will be safe. There are programmers, and then there are software engineers that need trained on stuff outside of a computer program, and how their programs will affect the public.

Reboot is not an option for a program when someone's life or retirement fund is on the line. Working in Telecom, I have seen a 5 minute reboot cost $5 million dollars on an international currency trade.

The programmer may not need the PE, but the system/program should require oversight of a qualified PE.


----------



## DVINNY (Jul 13, 2008)

I know little to nothing about these other professions, so I won't comment.

But it is a nice thread to read.


----------



## IlPadrino (Jul 13, 2008)

Slugger926 said:


> There is a big difference between a punk that writes a video game program for a Wii and someone that is going to make sure my stock accounts are safe, or if the control system on an artificial medical system will be safe. There are programmers, and then there are software engineers that need trained on stuff outside of a computer program, and how their programs will affect the public.
> Reboot is not an option for a program when someone's life or retirement fund is on the line. Working in Telecom, I have seen a 5 minute reboot cost $5 million dollars on an international currency trade.
> 
> The programmer may not need the PE, but the system/program should require oversight of a qualified PE.


I feel like maybe we're going in circles. Control Systems Engineering is already a recognized and licensed discipline in almost all 50 states (48 last time I checked). What else do "programmers" (your word, not mine... I'd choose software developer) need oversight on that isn't covered by the CSEs?

I'm not sure why you're disparaging video game programmers, but as I've written before, I think a programmer is analogous to a construction contractor except for the lack of detailed plans and specs. It doesn't matter what they're programming (video games, web apps (which create risk to your stock account security!), etc.) to me - they're all talented.


----------



## IlPadrino (Jul 13, 2008)

Slugger926 said:


> Section 475.2. Definitions: .
> 
> .
> 
> .


So you believe computer programmers use "mathematical, physical and engineering sciences" and so should be licensed as a PE? I'll need to think on that for a bit because it would clearly leave out the CompSci guys but include those that graduate from an ABET-accredited software engineer program (which I'm still learning about).

Thanks for the reference.


----------



## Slugger926 (Jul 13, 2008)

IlPadrino said:


> I feel like maybe we're going in circles. Control Systems Engineering is already a recognized and licensed discipline in almost all 50 states (48 last time I checked). What else do "programmers" (your word, not mine... I'd choose software developer) need oversight on that isn't covered by the CSEs?
> I'm not sure why you're disparaging video game programmers, but as I've written before, I think a programmer is analogous to a construction contractor except for the lack of detailed plans and specs. It doesn't matter what they're programming (video games, web apps (which create risk to your stock account security!), etc.) to me - they're all talented.


----------



## Slugger926 (Jul 13, 2008)

IlPadrino said:


> I feel like maybe we're going in circles. Control Systems Engineering is already a recognized and licensed discipline in almost all 50 states (48 last time I checked). What else do "programmers" (your word, not mine... I'd choose software developer) need oversight on that isn't covered by the CSEs?
> I'm not sure why you're disparaging video game programmers, but as I've written before, I think a programmer is analogous to a construction contractor except for the lack of detailed plans and specs. It doesn't matter what they're programming (video games, web apps (which create risk to your stock account security!), etc.) to me - they're all talented.


Now we are on the same page. Control Systems Engineering is being done by HS and College dropouts in the name of programing or even software engineering, or even the name of "Cisco Certified Engineer".

Another change I would like to see is more proactive screening by the boards and local law enforcement. If someone does a surgery without the proper medical license, the police will be there to arrest the guy. If someone does illegal engineering services (Aerotek), they get millions in revenue with the slight threat of maybe paying a $500 fine.


----------



## IlPadrino (Jul 13, 2008)

Slugger926 said:


> Control Systems Engineering is being done by HS and College dropouts in the name of programing or even software engineering, or even the name of "Cisco Certified Engineer".


Maybe you lost me... are you saying there are lots of people practicing Control Systems Engineering without the requisite license (at least in 48 of the 50 states)?


----------



## SuperAlpha (Jul 13, 2008)

IlPadrino said:


> Maybe you lost me... are you saying there are lots of people practicing Control Systems Engineering without the requisite license (at least in 48 of the 50 states)?



I have witnessed engineers design and seal the control documentation but the winning-bid contractors use high school/GED help as technicians to setup and configure the systems.


----------



## Slugger926 (Jul 13, 2008)

IlPadrino said:


> Maybe you lost me... are you saying there are lots of people practicing Control Systems Engineering without the requisite license (at least in 48 of the 50 states)?


Behind the scenes, YES!!!!!


----------



## Slugger926 (Jul 13, 2008)

SuperAlpha said:


> I have witnessed engineers design and seal the control documentation but the winning-bid contractors use high school/GED help as technicians to setup and configure the systems.


I have seen it where there was no engineers or seals in the whole process.


----------



## Dleg (Jul 13, 2008)

I think the "system" as it is has been the way it is for so long now that it would be extremely difficult and ill advised to just legislate it away. Having worked in an exempt field before, and now in an non-exempt field, I can say that there are a lot of engineers working in exempt fields who truly are outstanding engineers. Folks who design the automobiles you drive in, the planes you fly in, and even many of the folks who put the US on the moon. You can't just shut off their use of the term "engineer" overnight like that. Maybe with a long transition period....

On the other hand, now that I am a PE, having begrudgingly gone through the process and come out the other side not only unscathed, but also a better engineer for it (studying broadened my abilities my a mile), I also see the value in having everyone who calls themselves an "engineer" be licensed.

But, frankly, I don't want to live in a world where I have to always remember to call them "train drivers" when talking to my son about his favorite thing.


----------



## Slugger926 (Jul 14, 2008)

My biggest pet peeve is when my Sr. Management lays off 5 people in Oklahoma, and hires 8 people via Aerotek (or similar unlicensed company) in Texas without a PE from the company offering the services, I get ticked. It has happened on multiple occasions, and if there is a law to make the company offering engineering services be licensed, then they better be licensed. Else, they are undercutting both licensed engineers and even degreed engineers (since company policy states for such positions requires a BS, but the service companies aren't providing equivalent personnel).


----------



## Freon (Jul 14, 2008)

Nothing like a lively debate between polite professionals. In reality, I see two things that need to be done:

1) Stepped-up enforcement of the current state laws governing the engineering pratice. And yes, I think we need to make some changes reguarding "exempt" fields.

2) We need to activly work to control the title of "Engineer"; Only graduates of ABET BS programs shoud be allowed to use the title. Our brethern in the medical and legal fields have suceeded in making thier certifications and qualifications a part of society. We need to do the same, but what is the first step?

Now I'm going back to the "Engineer Princesses" thread to see if EngineerGurl posted her photo....

Freon, P.E. and dirty old man.


----------



## BluSkyy (Jul 14, 2008)

I feel the definition of engineer written into the code cited (same as in OK) is a bit tautological...

"Engineer means a person who, by the reason of...engineering sciences...engineering analysis and design acquired by engineering education and engineering experience is qualified...to engage in the practice of engineering"


----------



## IlPadrino (Jul 14, 2008)

BluSkyy said:


> I feel the definition of engineer written into the code cited (same as in OK) is a bit tautological...
> "Engineer means a person who, by the reason of...engineering sciences...engineering analysis and design acquired by engineering education and engineering experience is qualified...to engage in the practice of engineering"


Yeah, well, it certainly leaves it up to someone else to define "engineering sciences", "engineering analysis", "engineering education", and "engineering experience". Normally, I'd think those things are defined in statute.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jul 14, 2008)

If you have an engineering degree, you are an engineer.

Pass two additional tests, and your a licensed Professional Engineer.

Should be that simple.


----------



## gymrat1279 PE (Jul 14, 2008)

Capt Worley PE said:


> If you have an engineering degree, you are an engineer.
> Pass two additional tests, and your a licensed Professional Engineer.
> 
> Should be that simple.


My thoughts exactly.


----------



## IlPadrino (Jul 14, 2008)

Capt Worley PE said:


> If you have an engineering degree, you are an engineer.
> Pass two additional tests, and your a licensed Professional Engineer.
> 
> Should be that simple.


OK, but what about (almost all the) state laws that preclude you from calling yourself an "engineer" unless you're a licensed Professional Engineer? The degreed-engineers can't legally call themselves engineers for purposes of public business unless they're in an exempt industry (where allowed).


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jul 14, 2008)

The only time that really becomes an issue is consulting. You'd have to have a PE in that case anyway.


----------



## Katiebug (Jul 14, 2008)

error_matrix said:


> edit -Katiebug, why the hell are you pursuing PE licensure? sounds like you're not only complaining about the perceived non-necessity of it for where you work &amp; your job, but about the work involved in obtaining it at all. If it ain't your cup of tea, don't go spitting in everybody else's cup.


Two reasons: as a personal challenge and so that I can get more heavily involved in codes and standards work.

My complaint is not in the non-necessity of it - my main complaint is the apparent differences between states in terms of what is acceptable and what is not. In some states, not having any PE references is a showstopper. In other states, it may be a workable situation if the boards say it is. Some states waive the FE with a certain amount of experience, others do not. The inconsistency would be a major a problem if we suddenly mandated licensure for all.

Also, it's not feasible (that I can see) to suddenly require licensure across the board without a suitable - and again, consistent - transition plan for those working in industries and for companies where PEs are extremely unusual. I'm not decrying the process when I state that it would cause utter mayhem in my organization if suddenly 150+ mechanical, electrical, and materials engineers needed a PE in order to legally be called "engineers" - I'm being honest. I know and work with a lot of really outstanding, experienced engineers who would probably get out of the industry entirely rather than try to pass the FE at the age of 55 or 60. That would be a real loss, IMO. It'd be easy to say, "If they don't like it, screw 'em" but I think it's important to protect that knowledgebase.

For mechanical, there are only three depth areas on the PE exam: Thermo/Fluids, HVAC, or Machine Design. A lot of mechanical engineers work in areas like aerospace, automotive, modeling and analysis, etc. where _maybe_ machine design would be close to their area of expertise. There is a real lack of options for those who have spent a career in an area other than the three currently-available depth areas. I don't know the process by which NCEES comes up with and offers additional depth areas, but if licensure became a universal requirement, they'd probably need to come up with some more choices.

I realize I approach this from an unconventional viewpoint - but realize that for someone who is in an area of engineering where licensure is unusual, this can be a very frustrating process to approach, with a lot of apparent contradictions and inconsistencies. It just shouldn't be this complicated if we truly want to convince people of the value of licensure. I see that you're a civil - understand that it's a very different scenario for most mechanical engineers (for example) to get a PE than it is for most civil engineers.

I _fully _agree with limiting the use of the term "engineer". While my favorite "field engineer" is a smart man and very good at hands-on work, he is not an engineer. Ask him to do a simple statics problem and he'd be useless - forget about him doing any significant engineering analysis! Likewise, "sanitation engineers", most "sound engineers", etc. are not truly engineers. Those without an ABET (or equivalent) engineering degree should not be considered engineers. I think most/all of us would agree on that one. I would welcome additional regulation in this regard, up to and including requiring universal licensure for engineers - not to disparage those in other professions, but to reinforce the value of our own profession.

However, I see significant potential issues in requiring universal licensure (i.e. eliminating industry exemption) without substantial harmonization in requirements between states as well as a substantial expansion of available depth modules on the PE exams, and removing the requirement for endorsement by a certain number of PEs - or temporarily suspending it until exempt industry can develop a critical mass of PEs to endorse the next generation. I am many things, but I am not a blind cheerleader of moving forward without addressing such considerations. It's easy to say, "Everyone get licensed" but in my view would be much harder to implement under the current setup.

No need to get in a huff. I'm not trying to spit in anyone's cup, just pointing out that it'd be darned hard to mandate universal licensure/get rid of industrial exemption under the current system. Some simple changes could be made that would allow for straightforward universal licensing, and I suggested a few that might or might not be workable. The reality is that it can be daunting to even start this process if you're in exempt industry. It certainly was for me.


----------



## SSmith (Jul 14, 2008)

Just as a point of reference, let me be the first to say that there are Reliability Engineers that are certified. I am one of them. (We do all the below.)



Slugger926 said:


> Also, System Safety Engineering, Process Engineering, and Failure Mode and Effects Engineering ...
> Yes, they should be licensed, or working under a licensed engineer.


----------



## EM_PS (Jul 14, 2008)

Katiebug said:


> No need to get in a huff. I'm not trying to spit in anyone's cup, just pointing out that it'd be darned hard to mandate universal licensure/get rid of industrial exemption under the current system. Some simple changes could be made that would allow for straightforward universal licensing, and I suggested a few that might or might not be workable. The reality is that it can be daunting to even start this process if you're in exempt industry. It certainly was for me.


Katiebug - apologies for coming across as 'being in a huff'. i wasn't at all - w/ exception of Carlito  , i'm being conversational &amp; also throwing down my thoughts as point blank as i can. writing never conveys emotion. Again, sorry for coming across as angered.

My perception was that you were rallying behind the idea of our profession NOT taking on the daunting tasks of these changes, due to the difficulites &amp; intangibles involved, as you discussed. Of a certainty, it will be very difficult to enact such wide ranging changes &amp; engineering is certainly not alone - surveying is even in a worse state as it battles similar issues. But i truly believe these types of changes (some if not all) should be pursued, and hopefully will be pursued in our generation, and those to come.

Good luck in your pursuits &amp; challenges, EM


----------



## Guest (Jul 25, 2008)

benbo said:


> From what I read, JR is the Chief Tool Engineer around here these days.


Good point ... I need a change of title! 



Freon said:


> Nothing like a lively debate between polite professionals. In reality, I see two things that need to be done:
> 1) Stepped-up enforcement of the current state laws governing the engineering pratice. And yes, I think we need to make some changes reguarding "exempt" fields.
> 
> 2) We need to activly work to control the title of "Engineer"; Only graduates of ABET BS programs shoud be allowed to use the title. Our brethern in the medical and legal fields have suceeded in making thier certifications and qualifications a part of society. We need to do the same, but what is the first step?


I agree - can't do much without actively policing your profession to INSURE compilance. 



Freon said:


> Now I'm going back to the "Engineer Princesses" thread to see if EngineerGurl posted her photo....


I think that is something we can all agree upon! :eyebrows:



Capt Worley PE said:


> If you have an engineering degree, you are an engineer.
> Pass two additional tests, and your a licensed Professional Engineer.
> 
> Should be that simple.


Yes it should be ...

However, the world just doesn't work that way unfortunately.

JR


----------



## C-Dog (Jul 25, 2008)

How does a state regulate an industry that is national or global? They can't, the constitution forbids it (I am stretching here). If you want to get rid of the exempt status, then you need to get federal gov. regulating licences. I work in an exempt industry and have my PE, why, mainly to challenge myself and who knows what my future will bring. It does bring credibility, espeacially to those that do not know you.

I am rather fortunate to work in a large place (~4,000 engineers), so it was a a task to find PEs to endorse me, but it was not too dificult, but I can certainly understand the frustration of those in exept industries trying to find PEs to endorse them.

I agree with Capt. W. Degree = engineer, PE = licensced engineer.


----------



## ROBIAMEIT (Jul 25, 2008)

its been RIDICULOUS in PA

FIRST we couldnt call ourselves "Project Engineer" without a PE. THEN we couldnt even HAVE "Engineer" in our job title without PE . . . .

I went from "Engineer I" and "Engineer II" to "Project Engineer" to "Engineer Assistant" (how degrading!!) to "Senior Designer" (even MORE degrading since someone who had never been to college could also be a "Designer"!!)

I thought those SOB FULL OF THEMSELVES P.E's on the State Board were being SOO stupid!!

who the H#LL wants to get a P.E. and be included with those bunch of idiots?????

i was ashamed of my fellow "Engineers" for behaving that way, ON TOP of the crap us college grads and E.I.T.'s ALREADY got from thos idiots!


----------



## benbo (Jul 25, 2008)

C-Dog said:


> How does a state regulate an industry that is national or global? They can't, the constitution forbids it (I am stretching here).


Well, that's a major point of argument (on which I have no real opinion). States do the majority of regulation of commerce within the state. That's why incorporation is a state issue. But the commerce clause of the consitution does give the federal government the right to regulate commerce between the states. Interpretation of that clause can be a big bone of contention among people.


----------



## C-Dog (Jul 25, 2008)

ROBIAMEIT said:


> I thought those SOB FULL OF THEMSELVES P.E's on the State Board were being SOO stupid!!


Atleast you have PEs on the state board. I think, here is Conn. there is only 1 PE on the board, the rest are Esq.!


----------



## C-Dog (Jul 25, 2008)

Dleg said:


> But, frankly, I don't want to live in a world where I have to always remember to call them "train drivers" when talking to my son about his favorite thing.


I just read a Thomas the Tank Engine book to baby C-Dog tonight.  They are "train drivers" in the book. After baby C-Dog was asleep, I had to check out one of the recorded shows we have and, you guessed it, they are drivers, not engineers!


----------



## IlPadrino (Jul 26, 2008)

benbo said:


> Well, that's a major point of argument (on which I have no real opinion). States do the majority of regulation of commerce within the state. That's why incorporation is a state issue. But the commerce clause of the consitution does give the federal government the right to regulate commerce between the states. Interpretation of that clause can be a big bone of contention among people.


Right... engineering is not an INTER-STATE commerce.



C-Dog said:


> How does a state regulate an industry that is national or global? They can't, the constitution forbids it (I am stretching here). If you want to get rid of the exempt status, then you need to get federal gov. regulating licences.


Unless you're arguing that people from outside the state can pass through and be affected (think safety) by the engineers... that' would be interesting. But how are doctors and lawyers licensed? I thought they were the same as engineers - there's a national testing system but each state licenses their own. So if they don't merit a national license, we engineers sure as hell don't.


----------



## IlPadrino (Jul 26, 2008)

jregieng said:


> I agree - can't do much without actively policing your profession to INSURE compilance.


You meant ensure, right? Or does Loyd's of London have policies covering this?!?


----------



## mudpuppy (Jul 26, 2008)

But what about this: an unlicensed engineer in Detroit designs a car for an auto company. The auto company plans to sell the car in all the states. California decides that all cars sold in CA have to be designed by a California-licensed PE, so the company, based in MI, can't sell its cars in CA.

Doesn't this hinder interstate commerce? And if so shouldn't it fall under the Commerce Clause? Also say that a car company based in Japan was also banned from selling its car in CA because it was not designed by a PE. Wouldn't this fall under "foreign commerce" within the Commerce Clause?


----------



## mudpuppy (Jul 27, 2008)

Get a coupon for free Ensure here!


----------



## SuperAlpha (Jul 27, 2008)

C-Dog said:


> How does a state regulate an industry that is national or global? They can't, the constitution forbids it (I am stretching here).



simple - A non-compliant engineering firm cannot solicit engineering services and deliver the designs to clients in a state that has such laws in place. This is already the case. If the client wants to do it by proxy, and circumvent it, that is up to the client.


----------



## C-Dog (Jul 30, 2008)

I think the engineering profession should make the switch to SI units.


----------



## Guest (Jul 30, 2008)

C-Dog said:


> I think the engineering profession should make the switch to SI units.


Isn't this a thread topic for discussion on its' own?? 

I am not particularly married to using SI or english units. I come across applications of both systems of units in the work I perform on a daily basis.

I am sure other more informed opinions will differ ...

JR


----------



## Katiebug (Jul 30, 2008)

C-Dog said:


> I think the engineering profession should make the switch to SI units.


Agreed.

Several times a day I have to make the switch in my head between feet per minute and meters per second. Darn the US and Canada for sticking with English units when everyone else uses metric!

Oddly enough it's not unusual to hear from colleagues in Germany, France, etc. who refer to FPM but every other parameter is in SI units. I think it's because FPM was used as the primary velocity unit in our industry for 100+ years.


----------



## ROBIAMEIT (Jul 30, 2008)

C-Dog said:


> I think the engineering profession should make the switch to SI units.


PennDOT tried that a few years back and it was a DISASTER. i myself prefer English. Ever try to figure out what a cylynder break at 26,000 MegaPascals means???? Please just give me the old 5,000 psi and i am good.

Highway stationing in Meters is MADDENING!! We also tried to do it in West by god Virginia . . . . we designed a WHOLE seciton of highway in SI and had to re-do the WHOLE thing in English because the WVDOT didnt get ONE SINGLE BID on the job . . . .contractors said they couldnt figure out quantities!! . . . . thats what you get for trying that kinda thing in WV!!!


----------



## Casey (Jul 30, 2008)

Yeah... Working in multiples of 10 is madness!

Give me the straight forward logic of 5280 ft per mile... 12inches per foot... 3 feet per yard... 16 ounces per pound...

Screw the French and their whacky 10 base system!

Long live fractions!


----------



## EM_PS (Jul 30, 2008)

There is nothing more purely rational than the metric system, based on science, universal in application, unencumbered by local variants, impeccably logical. Jefferson was a strong proponent of a base 10 system of measurements, and the opportunity that this gave the average citizen of dealing on equal terms w/ those more educated than himself. Originally the basis of measure was the ten millionth part of a quadrant of the earth's meridian (established by french geodesists), now measured by light in a vacuum (meter). In the late 1700's, a prototype meter and kilogram, made of copper, set forth from France bound for Philadelphia. Unfortunately, a storm diverted the ship to Guadaloupe. Through encounters w/ pirates and the cursed british, the dude sent as emissary was imprisoned, where he died. The copper bar &amp; weight measure eventually did make it to America however, and ultimately to Philadelphia, being received by non-scientist men, and without the emissary to explain, the two standards significance was failed to be appreciated, never being shown to Congress. They are in a display case in the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which still spearheads official efforts to bring the metric system to the US.

[plaigerized from Measuring America]

technically, we shouldn't even be having this discussion, if not for dumb pirate fate. . .


----------



## Guest (Jul 31, 2008)

error_matrix said:


> technically, we shouldn't even be having this discussion, if not for dumb pirate fate. . .


That's just crazy talk !!!!







JR


----------



## C-Dog (Jul 31, 2008)

Most of our supplier errors are because of units (we unfortunatly design in english units). Our supply base is global, so they good with SI units. The last division I worked for, made the switch to SI units while I was there because of the global supply and customer base. That was pretty interesting. If you didn't know who was old, you knew once the switch was made.


----------



## AlaME (Jul 31, 2008)

Inch by inch the US is going to the metric system.


----------



## squishles10 (Jul 31, 2008)

ask Caltrans how that went...


----------



## mudpuppy (Jul 31, 2008)

Volts, Amps, Watts, Hertz. . .they are all SI or SI-derived units. What's the problem? :dunno:


----------



## cement (Jul 31, 2008)

we have a nice pile of tapes, wheels, level rods, etc. getting dusty in the basement with this new fangled metric system of measurement...


----------



## Katiebug (Aug 1, 2008)

C-Dog said:


> Most of our supplier errors are because of units (we unfortunatly design in english units). Our supply base is global, so they good with SI units. The last division I worked for, made the switch to SI units while I was there because of the global supply and customer base. That was pretty interesting. If you didn't know who was old, you knew once the switch was made.


We're so global that we found we had to switch to SI. The only part of the world where our system drawings are in English units is the US and Canada. Fortunately we don't have any units that are too nutty; distance, weight, and force. We've switched over so that internal design work (test fixtures and the like) are done in SI units, and all global components are designed, tested, and rated in SI units.

I do believe a switch to metric is workable, and frankly I have no idea why it hasn't been done here. In terms of everyday things like kilometers instead of miles when driving in the car, we'd probably have to have double signage for a few years until folks get used to the new numbers. As an engineer I find metric/SI units to be much easier to work with than English units, but I also went to school not long ago and most of our coursework used SI units predominantly or exclusively (the prof's choice). I got very used to working in SI so it was a bit surprising to get into industry and discover that our company still uses English units in North America.


----------



## Guest (Aug 1, 2008)

Katiebug said:


> I do believe a switch to metric is workable, and frankly I have no idea why it hasn't been done here. In terms of everyday things like kilometers instead of miles when driving in the car, we'd probably have to have double signage for a few years until folks get used to the new numbers. As an engineer I find metric/SI units to be much easier to work with than English units, but I also went to school not long ago and most of our coursework used SI units predominantly or exclusively (the prof's choice). I got very used to working in SI so it was a bit surprising to get into industry and discover that our company still uses English units in North America.


How do I say this without it coming out as a slam ...

I am not sure a switch is so workable in the country where you are lucky to get 1-in-4 REGISTERED VOTERS out to vote or can get most people to pay attention to something longer than a 2 minute news blurb about anything of significance.

Otherwise, I generally agree with your points. 

JR


----------



## Freon (Aug 1, 2008)

JR, I must agree. The 30-second sound-bite attention span of most Americans would make the change almost impossiable. Hell, we can not even get people to use a 1$ coin.

Freon


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Aug 1, 2008)

I have a dollar coin and neither the vending machines nor the merchants want it.


----------



## Dark Knight (Aug 1, 2008)

The change I would like to see?....

Engineer's salaries comparable to doctor's and lawyer's. How 'bout that?


----------



## snickerd3 (Aug 1, 2008)

Capt Worley PE said:


> I have a dollar coin and neither the vending machines nor the merchants want it.


Try the post office...they LOVE to give out the dollar coins as change.


----------



## snickerd3 (Aug 1, 2008)

Dark Knight said:


> The change I would like to see?....
> Engineer's salaries comparable to doctor's and lawyer's. How 'bout that?


Probably need to specify specialized drs and powerful lawyers as not all drs and layers get paid very well.


----------



## Freon (Aug 1, 2008)

snickerd3 said:


> Probably need to specify specialized drs and powerful lawyers as not all drs and layers get paid very well.



A valid point, I guess an engineer working in a large firm would be akin to a doctor in an HMO network; or an attorney who is an associate.

If you are an engineer in "private pratice", You probally also have significant overhead expenses, just like our medical and legal friends.

Freon


----------



## mudpuppy (Aug 1, 2008)

There is a section of I-19 between Tucson, AZ and Nogales, AZ (on the Mexican border) that was signed in km rather than miles when it was built in the 1970's. They have finally given up and are resigning it in miles.

As for engineering vs. doctor/lawyer salaries. . . I personally don't begrudge them making more since they have to go to school a lot longer. Between school, internship and residency, how many years is a doctor out of the regular workforce, like 10 years? While accumulating debt the entire time.


----------



## jmbeck (Sep 5, 2008)

Back to the ole SI-English debate.

As an HVAC guy, it's a pain in the ass to deal with SI units for flow. To me anyway. Half the people want it in cubic meters per second, and the other half in liter/sec.

That's all. Carry on.


----------



## C-Dog (Sep 5, 2008)

jmbeck said:


> Back to the ole SI-English debate.
> As an HVAC guy, it's a pain in the ass to deal with SI units for flow. To me anyway. Half the people want it in cubic meters per second, and the other half in liter/sec.
> 
> That's all. Carry on.


Liter is not an SI unit.

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/units.html


----------



## IlPadrino (Sep 5, 2008)

C-Dog said:


> Liter is not an SI unit.


Right... a liter is just another name for a cubic decimeter. And it's not exactly rocket science to convert from liters to cubic meters in your head.

Forget base 10... Base 60 is where it's at!


----------



## jmbeck (Sep 5, 2008)

IlPadrino said:


> Right... a liter is just another name for a cubic decimeter. And it's not exactly rocket science to convert from liters to cubic meters in your head.
> Forget base 10... Base 60 is where it's at!


Well hump me running.

Thanks, I'll crawl back to my hole now.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Sep 5, 2008)

mudpuppy said:


> There is a section of I-19 between Tucson, AZ and Nogales, AZ (on the Mexican border) that was signed in km rather than miles when it was built in the 1970's. They have finally given up and are resigning it in miles.


We have a stretch if I-265 that is in the same boat...except they haven't changed the signs yet. Even though they put the signage in dual metric/English, they still put the signs in even miles from the exits (so all the signs say 1.6km (1 mile)).


----------



## IlPadrino (Sep 6, 2008)

jmbeck said:


> Well hump me running.


I think it's Dleg who does funny things when running... though I hadn't heard humping was part of the hash.


----------



## maryannette (Sep 6, 2008)

I'm too old to even think about that. Well, maybe not too old to think, but ...


----------



## Guest (Sep 6, 2008)

I haven't done any :leghump: as of late, but I have left some pretty good impressions!! 

Mary,

You are NEVER too old to think or do anything! 

JR


----------



## csb (Sep 6, 2008)

jregieng said:


> I haven't done any :leghump: as of late, but I have left some pretty good impressions!!



Is the couch okay?

(sorry...couldn't resist  )


----------



## Guest (Sep 6, 2008)

csb said:


> Is the couch okay?
> 
> 
> (sorry...couldn't resist  )


Nope .. I can dish it and take it just as well! 

Actually ... the reference is based on 'impressions' I had left after first dates at the end of the date. I tend to have a slight issue with a physiological response if the kiss is a bit more than a peck.  hmy:

JR


----------



## csb (Sep 6, 2008)

oops!

(but hilarious)


----------



## squishles10 (Sep 7, 2008)

Well this thread, along with all others went askew. Congrats!


----------



## Dleg (Sep 7, 2008)

IlPadrino said:


> I think it's Dleg who does funny things when running... though I hadn't heard humping was part of the hash.


No humping!

Geez you guys have a talent with mis-directing threads ....


----------



## IlPadrino (Sep 7, 2008)

Dleg said:


> No humping!


You mean "No humping allowed in this thread" or "No, we don't hump during Hash runs"?


----------



## Dleg (Sep 7, 2008)

Both?


----------



## maryannette (Sep 7, 2008)

How did a discussion about our profession turn into a discussion about humping???!!!??


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Sep 7, 2008)

mary said:


> How did a discussion about our profession turn into a discussion about humping???!!!??


Are you new here?


----------



## EM_PS (Sep 7, 2008)

I dunno, conversing about JR's priapism, a serious medical condition, is pretty scintillating :joke:


----------



## IlPadrino (Sep 7, 2008)

error_matrix said:


> I dunno, conversing about JR's priapism, a serious medical condition, is pretty scintillating :joke:


I had to look that one up... I didn't know JR was taking Viagra - who knew?!?


----------



## EM_PS (Sep 7, 2008)

jregieng said:


> Nope .. I can dish it and take it just as well!
> Actually ... the reference is based on 'impressions' I had left after first dates at the end of the date. I tend to have a slight issue with a physiological response if the kiss is a bit more than a peck.  hmy:
> 
> JR


Well, he broke the subject w/ mention of his 1st date boners - i just seeked a more clinical term


----------



## IlPadrino (Sep 7, 2008)

error_matrix said:


> Well, he broke the subject w/ mention of his 1st date boners - i just seeked a more clinical term


I thought his "impression" comment was related to the "ankle biter" emoticon-thingy... and I just assumed it meant he was a "biter", especially when deep kissing.

I need a new hobby...


----------



## EM_PS (Sep 8, 2008)

Don't you go cheating on EB w/ a new hobby now. . . that's just crazy talk

JR, totally just razzing ya on your 'pup-tent' issues (oops i did it again. . .)


----------



## Guest (Sep 8, 2008)

wilheldp_PE said:


> Are you new here?


Yeah .. my thoughts exactly! :laugh:



IlPadrino said:


> I had to look that one up... I didn't know JR was taking Viagra - who knew?!?


:Locolaugh: :Locolaugh:

No need for viagra, cialis, or any other 'enhancements'! 



IlPadrino said:


> I thought his "impression" comment was related to the "ankle biter" emoticon-thingy... and I just assumed it meant he was a "biter", especially when deep kissing.
> I need a new hobby...


That's a leg humper! 

The comment was more aligned with the thought of a sudden rise in spirits with the more passionate kisses - no dry humping though, just a poke. 

No new hobbies that take you away from spamming EB !!



error_matrix said:


> JR, totally just razzing ya on your 'pup-tent' issues (oops i did it again. . .)


It's totally cool ... actually pretty damned funny when it gets down to it it ...

:Locolaugh: :Locolaugh:

JR


----------



## csb (Sep 8, 2008)

okay, fine, I'll get back on topic...

I think that for a legitimate rule to happen where you can only be called engineer if you're actually an engineer (licensed, graduate, whatever) it would take all of the state boards coming together and cooperating. I just don't see that happening very soon. It would need a pretty big national push and that national push right now seems more focused on teh BS+30. Perhaps a BS+30 means it would be easier to gain more respect, but I don't know.


----------



## Freon (Sep 8, 2008)

I started this a while back, and the topic did wander a bit. I would just like the State Board to tighten up on the language in the Texas State Act and do some enforcing. Proper titles, that is all I ask.

Freon


----------



## Mike in Gastonia (Sep 8, 2008)

If you want some good debate, someone should invite GT ME over to this thread. I have no doubt he has some ideas.....


----------



## FLBuff PE (Sep 8, 2008)

Mike in Gastonia said:


> If you want some good debate, someone should invite GT ME over to this thread. I have no doubt he has some ideas.....


Obviously he/she is the only person that should hold the title of engineer.


----------



## Mike in Gastonia (Sep 8, 2008)

FLBuff said:


> Obviously he/she is the only person that should hold the title of engineer.


Well.... that goes without saying. I was hoping he/she could cast a few sprinkles of knowledge, the dandruff, if you will, off that ginormous, egotistical head down to the lowly masses.....


----------



## RIP - VTEnviro (Sep 8, 2008)

FLBuff said:


> Obviously he/she is the only person that should hold the title of engineer.


What about You Know Who?


----------



## FLBuff PE (Sep 8, 2008)

^^^Is this a hint that they may be one and the same? hmy:


----------



## csb (Sep 8, 2008)

Like Tom Marvolo?


----------



## Guest (Sep 8, 2008)

csb said:


> okay, fine, I'll get back on topic...


NCEES has been touting a Model Law Engineer (MLE) concept that carries over into the evaluation they conduct as part of the NCEES Records Program

The you can view the Model Laws and Rules at --&gt; http://www.ncees.org/introduction/about_nc...s_model_law.pdf



csb said:


> Like Tom Marvolo?


Perhaps?? 

JR


----------



## csb (Sep 8, 2008)

$5000 a day for "impersonating" an engineer? Not a bad start.


----------



## EM_PS (Sep 8, 2008)

who do i make the check payable to?


----------



## csb (Sep 9, 2008)

^ no joke (for me I mean...I feel like any day they are going to come in and tell me to pack it up, that it's been fun, but now I need to get a real job)


----------

