# Passing Percent



## navyasw02 (Jul 23, 2010)

I just looked and CA just posted the passing percentage for the April PE Mechanical exam - a meager 54.something%. Just out of curiosity, I looked back at some previous years and it looks lower than the average. I come on this board and see a far higher number of people reporting that they passed, especially on the first try. So for the 45% of test takers who take the exam, what goes wrong? Are they just bad test takers? Bad day? Overconfident and didnt study enough or just flat out tried to wing it? Just plain dumb? Is there a survey or some data out there that shows more granularity regarding the people who fail?


----------



## benbo (Jul 23, 2010)

navyasw02 said:


> I just looked and CA just posted the passing percentage for the April PE Mechanical exam - a meager 54.something%. Just out of curiosity, I looked back at some previous years and it looks lower than the average. I come on this board and see a far higher number of people reporting that they passed, especially on the first try. So for the 45% of test takers who take the exam, what goes wrong? Are they just bad test takers? Bad day? Overconfident and didnt study enough or just flat out tried to wing it? Just plain dumb? Is there a survey or some data out there that shows more granularity regarding the people who fail?


Many of the above are true.

But not dumb. IMO you have to be very smart even to qualify to take the test.


----------



## outatime2002 (Jul 23, 2010)

The answer to your question is that the people who pass are more likely to post their results on the site. Most people who failed are not going to shout it out to the world. Therefore, you get the impression that the group of people who use this site has a much higher pass rate than the rest of CA. With that being said, I would venture to guess that the group who uses this site would have a slightly higher pass rate because these people care more and are willing to ask for help. If people are taking time to use this site and ask for help, they are most likely putting more time in to study. I for one received alot of great advice on this site that I feel gave me an edge for the exam.


----------



## navyasw02 (Jul 23, 2010)

benbo said:


> navyasw02 said:
> 
> 
> > I just looked and CA just posted the passing percentage for the April PE Mechanical exam - a meager 54.something%. Just out of curiosity, I looked back at some previous years and it looks lower than the average. I come on this board and see a far higher number of people reporting that they passed, especially on the first try. So for the 45% of test takers who take the exam, what goes wrong? Are they just bad test takers? Bad day? Overconfident and didnt study enough or just flat out tried to wing it? Just plain dumb? Is there a survey or some data out there that shows more granularity regarding the people who fail?
> ...



I dont think you really have to be smart to qualify for the exam, just meet certain requirements. I've known a few guys who have graduated from engineering programs (barely) who could qualify for the exam, but I know for sure they would not pass. Every field has individuals who may not be "dumb" in the strictest sense of the word, but certainly "below average" when compared to their peers. Certainly I dont think that people who have failed the exam are dumb, but I think that there may be some folks in the group of people who fail who simply dont have a chance to start with.


----------



## benbo (Jul 23, 2010)

navyasw02 said:


> benbo said:
> 
> 
> > navyasw02 said:
> ...


Generally, you need to pass the EIT, have an engineering degree, work as an engineer, and obtain references to take the exam.

I don't know where you work or went to school, but I don't know many "dumb" people who can pass engineering school and work as an engineer.

Frankly, the test is possible to pass by taking review courses, putting in the time, or in some cases just taking it multiple times. I wouldn't have a whole lot of confidence in somebody's qualifications if all I knew is they took the test. I'm more impressed with the degree, experience, and references.


----------



## navyasw02 (Jul 23, 2010)

benbo said:


> Generally, you need to pass the EIT, have an engineering degree, work as an engineer, and obtain references to take the exam.
> I don't know where you work or went too school, but I don't know many "dumb" people who can pass engineering school and work as an engineer.
> 
> Frankly, the test is possible to pass by taking review courses, putting in the time, or in some cases just taking it multiple times. I wouldn't have a whole lot of confidene in somebody's qualifications if all I knew is they took the test. I'm more impressed with the degree, experience, and references.


I can see some difficulty in obtaining the references, but the EIT and having an engineering degree aren't exactly things that would separate the wheat from the chaff. What do you call the valedictorian and the anchor man after the graduation ceremony? Graduate. I've known a lot of people who have squeaked by and passed the EIT as well as engineering school. All I'm saying is that there's some people out there in every profession who just aren't bright enough to pass something like the PE, the Bar, the Med Boards, or whatever else who have just managed to squeak by the system. Think of it like a quality control inspection. If you can catch 99.99% of the defective parts, and if you make enough parts there's going to be some that slip through the cracks.


----------



## benbo (Jul 23, 2010)

navyasw02 said:


> and having an engineering degree aren't exactly things that would separate the wheat from the chaff.


Neither is the PE exam. You think this test is that hard? This is some major test of intelligence beyond an engineering curriculum?? This is a multiple choice test that you need around 70% to pass. People squeak by this too. I know people that pass multiple PE exams in different disciplines just by boning up on review books and taking a review course or two. I would be far more willing to trust someone with an actual degree and work experience. THis test is the least significant credential.


----------



## benbo (Jul 23, 2010)

BTW - to compare the present PE exam to the Bar or the Med boards is just silly. I think the Bar exam is a two or three day exam.

But even with those exams, the educational credentials and experience are far more important to me than the test.


----------



## cdcengineer (Jul 23, 2010)

navyasw02 said:


> I just looked and CA just posted the passing percentage for the April PE Mechanical exam - a meager 54.something%. Just out of curiosity, I looked back at some previous years and it looks lower than the average. I come on this board and see a far higher number of people reporting that they passed, especially on the first try. So for the 45% of test takers who take the exam, what goes wrong? Are they just bad test takers? Bad day? Overconfident and didnt study enough or just flat out tried to wing it? Just plain dumb? Is there a survey or some data out there that shows more granularity regarding the people who fail?


You see people on this board (forum) posting passing results because the people on EB are smarter than the engineering PE candidates on other less prestigious forums ( I won't mention the (3) initials)..

Stick w/ EB and you too will be a minimally competent engineer (aka PE).

Ha - Friday's are great!!


----------



## navyasw02 (Jul 23, 2010)

benbo said:


> navyasw02 said:
> 
> 
> > and having an engineering degree aren't exactly things that would separate the wheat from the chaff.
> ...


I haven't taken the test yet, but I think it will be harder than the FE, thus a finer filter for those who have squeaked through thus far. That leads me back to my original discussion point that maybe some of the people who contribute to the high fail percentage were some of the ones who made it through the cracks.

Why do you think the PE is the least significant credential? What would be the point in going through the whole process if it wasn't important? Personally, I think a license (maybe not in its current form) should be a requirement to be working as an engineer.


----------



## benbo (Jul 24, 2010)

navyasw02 said:


> I haven't taken the test yet, but I think it will be harder than the FE, thus a finer filter for those who have squeaked through thus far. That leads me back to my original discussion point that maybe some of the people who contribute to the high fail percentage were some of the ones who made it through the cracks.
> Why do you think the PE is the least significant credential? What would be the point in going through the whole process if it wasn't important? Personally, I think a license (maybe not in its current form) should be a requirement to be working as an engineer.


You misunderstand. Probably because I wasn't 100% clear,

I didn't mean the PE *license* is the least important credential. I mean that the *exam* is the least important part of the process.

To me, the most significant part of the process, the part that tells whether an engineer has the ability, skills, ethics and yes, brains to be licensed, is the work experience documented by other ethical PEs honestly attesting to the applicants qualifications. Closely followed by the degree.

I would never in a million years hire an engineer to do anythng simply by giving him or her a PE exam and seeing if they got 70%. But I have hired many engineers in exempt industry positions that did not have a license, based on their experience and education.

To me, the exam would be a lot more convincing if it tested something engineers are actually supposed to be able to do - like for us electricals give us some specifications and ask us to design an electronic control system, a simple radio reciever or logic circuit, or a distribution system. I don't know about you, but I have yet been asked to answer multiple choice questions at work.

As I understand the Bar exam, for example, there are MC, and short answer sections that show the lawyers know the laws, and can think enough to apply them, Then they have to write out briefs explaining case law - something they would actually have to do at work. At least that'smy understanding.


----------



## benbo (Jul 24, 2010)

Let me just say one more thing. I'll agree that it's very rarely possible for someone without adequate intelligence and abiilty to squeak by in engineering school, and pass the FE (which isn't all that much easier than the PE and also has a low pass rate).

I guess it's also possible for that same individual to also get hired, work, and find enough unscrupulous PEs to sign off their experience.

So here we have this dummy sitting for the PE. IMO, very, very rare. Enough to be statistically insignificant. But there he is.

If we are relying on the PE exam as the final guardpost to keep this guy from stamping off plans for a suspension bridge, well, that's a frightening thought.


----------



## navyasw02 (Jul 24, 2010)

benbo said:


> Let me just say one more thing. I'll agree that it's very rarely possible for someone without adequate intelligence and abiilty to squeak by in engineering school, and pass the FE (which isn't all that much easier than the PE and also has a low pass rate).
> I guess it's also possible for that same individual to also get hired, work, and find enough unscrupulous PEs to sign off their experience.
> 
> So here we have this dummy sitting for the PE. IMO, very, very rare. Enough to be statistically insignificant. But there he is.
> ...


I agree with both your posts. I dont remember where I read it, but someone was talking about the PE worth and basically said it's great, but doesn't give some kid in their 20's the right to think they know more than someone with years of experience just because they passed a multiple choice test.

For some branches of engineering, isn't having your PE really important? I heard that's pretty much the case for civil, but less so for ME and EE's. For me, I work for the Navy so it's not required, but I want to have it for my own wellbeing. I'll probably never use it, but I want to have it for when I eventually end up getting out of the Navy.


----------



## benbo (Jul 24, 2010)

navyasw02 said:


> For some branches of engineering, isn't having your PE really important? I heard that's pretty much the case for civil, but less so for ME and EE's. For me, I work for the Navy so it's not required, but I want to have it for my own wellbeing. I'll probably never use it, but I want to have it for when I eventually end up getting out of the Navy.


That's what I hear. Civils really need to have one. I don't know about MEs, but for EEs it depends where you work. I worked many years in aerospace/defense and most people didn't even know what a PE is. Same when I worked in semiconductors.

But seven years ago I got a government job and you have to have a PE to make any money at all. So I studied and took the test. I think for EEs it is more important if you are in the power or building industries. If you decide to get out of the Navy one place you might be looking is at the power/energy area. It is FULL of ex-Navy people. But a PE helps in that business. Plus, it is always a nice thing to have.

My cousin is ex-Navy, and he isn't even an engineer. But through his connections he got a job as an operator at a power plant. He retired as Chief after 20 years. So with his pension, and overtime he easily brings in 150K a year.


----------



## navyasw02 (Jul 24, 2010)

benbo said:


> navyasw02 said:
> 
> 
> > For some branches of engineering, isn't having your PE really important? I heard that's pretty much the case for civil, but less so for ME and EE's. For me, I work for the Navy so it's not required, but I want to have it for my own wellbeing. I'll probably never use it, but I want to have it for when I eventually end up getting out of the Navy.
> ...


Power/energy is huge right now for the Navy with the whole "green ship" push and with the Navy spending a lot of money on next gen weapons that require a beefier electric plant. I've still got some time before I get out, but I'm certain those jobs will still exist. All that stuff has been "just around the corner" probably for the last 20 years.


----------



## IlPadrino (Jul 24, 2010)

benbo said:


> To me, the most significant part of the process ... is the work experience documented by other ethical PEs honestly attesting to the applicants qualifications


Then we're in trouble because the easiest part to get is the experience. I don't know of anyone who's been kept away from the exam because they're unable to get experience or references documented... but I have met some engineers (with and without PE) that I wouldn't trust to design a one-hole burnout.

I agree wholeheartedly that PEness isn't a credential that stands on its own. What you've done with your PEness is far more important! And that's probably different than MDs because I expect *any* doctor is more than capable of taking care of me. I can't say the same for PEs.


----------



## benbo (Jul 24, 2010)

^^^^

Then we are in huge trouble, and we might as well forget the license.

The whole discussion is whether you can be stupid and unqualified and sit for the PE exam. When I applied, people certified and stamped my reference that I was competent, and that they were in a position to verify my competence.

When I refer people, I certify that they are qualified. So if there are a bunch of PEs certifying people are competent when they aren't this needs to be investigagted.

Who do you know that signed a reference for an incompetent engineeer? You should report them. THey need their license revoked for filing a false document.

The test is sort of an afterthought as far as I'm concerned. Most new graduates could pass it. If I knew a person had managed to stay employed for 20 years, I grant that far more credence than merely passing that exam.

Also, to the main point of our discussion, since you state you know PEs that don't know jack, that sort of indicates that the exam doesn't really provide any safeguards either. This was the main bone of contention.


----------



## navyasw02 (Jul 24, 2010)

Since there seems to be some disparity, what do you guys think would be the ideal means of certifying an engineer besides the PE? Ideally, the EIT time would be your "apprenticeship" time, but maybe that's not what happens out in the real world. I dont know, I'm in a totally different environment so I could be way out in left field.


----------



## benbo (Jul 24, 2010)

navyasw02 said:


> Since there seems to be some disparity, what do you guys think would be the ideal means of certifying an engineer besides the PE? Ideally, the EIT time would be your "apprenticeship" time, but maybe that's not what happens out in the real world. I dont know, I'm in a totally different environment so I could be way out in left field.


I think you and IlPadrino are actually in the same world. I think you both work for the Navy.

Plus I don't think he and I completely disagree. He is basically saying that none of it - education, experience, or exam, is particularly dispositive as far as predicting who knows their ass from a hole in the ground.

I'm not sure about Civil engineers. Frankly, I think the main reason the PE is important to civil engineers is because the stamp is often required in construction, and there needs to be accountablility for liability.

I will just say that for Electrical Engineers, as I wrote earlier, in my government job it is a requirement. But I regularly recieve solicitations from recruiters, I worked in exempt industries for years, and I sometimes read the advertisements. I would venture that over 90% of the employment ads for Electrical engineers do not mention a PE license, but they do ask for specific experience. They often ask for Masters Degrees. For entry level they look at GPAs and schools attended. You will almost never see an electrical engineering advertisement requiring an EIT or PE, except in very specific and limited industries. To me this shows that hiring managers who hire EEs in most industries couldn't care less about the Principles and Practice exam. We've done okay in technological advancement up to this point without universal PE licensure.


----------



## cdcengineer (Jul 24, 2010)

navyasw02 said:


> Since there seems to be some disparity, what do you guys think would be the ideal means of certifying an engineer besides the PE? Ideally, the EIT time would be your "apprenticeship" time, but maybe that's not what happens out in the real world. I dont know, I'm in a totally different environment so I could be way out in left field.


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

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

Yikes..


----------



## benbo (Jul 24, 2010)

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


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



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


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

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

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


----------



## navyasw02 (Jul 25, 2010)

benbo said:


> I've got to say I expected there was some BS in applications, but this is a little worrisome to me. In CA I think you need three recommendations from PEs who know your work. They must certify (and I know this because I filled out a rec yesterday) that you are competent to take responsible charge of engineering work. I assume the rules are similar everywhere.
> If what you are saying is true, three engineers basically all lied on this person's application. If this is widespread, what good is an apprenticeship or anything like that? People could just as easily lie about that.
> 
> If this goes on a lot, they need a much harder test. And they probably need to go back to the old style where they get rid of the multiple choice and actually ask people to design things on paper.


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


----------



## benbo (Jul 25, 2010)

navyasw02 said:


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


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

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

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

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


----------



## navyasw02 (Jul 25, 2010)

benbo said:


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


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


----------



## benbo (Jul 25, 2010)

navyasw02 said:


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


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

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

You know of specific cases where people falsified references?


----------



## benbo (Jul 25, 2010)

Here's the CA reference form.

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## cdcengineer (Jul 26, 2010)

navyasw02 said:


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


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


----------



## IlPadrino (Jul 26, 2010)

navyasw02 said:


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


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

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

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


----------



## benbo (Jul 26, 2010)

IlPadrino said:


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


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


----------



## IlPadrino (Jul 27, 2010)

benbo said:


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


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


----------



## cdcengineer (Jul 27, 2010)

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

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


----------



## benbo (Jul 27, 2010)

IlPadrino said:


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


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

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

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

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


----------



## cdcengineer (Jul 27, 2010)

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


----------



## benbo (Jul 27, 2010)

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


----------

